Talk:Tito–Stalin split/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 19:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I shall attempt to review this article. This is my first time reviewing a GAN, so please let me know if something I'm doing doesn't look right. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking up this review. I have also posted a copyediting request at WP:GOCE/REQ - hopefully there'll be some input from the Guild on the prose quality by the time the review is completed. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did a first read through the article along with a bit of copyediting. It's a very interesting and thorough article - good work. I'll give you a formal assessment in a day or two, but my initial suggestion would be to break up some of the longer sentences. Some of them are a bit confusing because of their length - for instance the first sentence of the "Background" section and the one beginning "Tito called for action against". Breaking each of them up into two or three shorter sentences would greatly improve the readability of the prose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. Did this one, will go through the entire prose later tonight or tomorrow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I have now read the prose once again, copyediting it to clarify where I saw room for improvement. I should probably have another go at the task, but I suspect it would be wiser to do this tomorrow when I'm fresh(er). Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

My preliminary observations are as follows:
 * The article passes GA criteria 1b and 2 through 6. (I will provide additional comments on these criteria "for the record" at a later time.)
 * The article is close to passing 1a, but parts of the prose could still be somewhat clearer. Specifically:
 * World War II section:
 * The sentence beginning "Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy" is a bit confusing and should probably be broken up. You might consider taking out the names of the occupation zones - I'm not sure what they add. A "see also" link to an article like World War II in Yugoslavia might also be helpful.
 * What is a "Communist centre"?
 * The sentences beginning "Further conflict developed in June 1941" and "There were already remnants" are a bit confusing. Rewording them would probably be sufficient, although breaking them up wouldn't be bad, either.
 * Break up the sentence beginning "In October 1941".
 * You use both the English "Peter II" and the Serbo-Croatian "Petar II." Choose one or the other.
 * Political situation section: Break up the sentence beginning "The contrast with the rest of Eastern Europe".
 * Yugoslav foreign policy section:
 * I'd reword the sentence that begins "The relations were complicated".
 * Could you move the sentence beginning "The militaries of the two countries also cooperated" to be before the "Even though the USSR" sentence? As it stands, it isn't clear which two countries you're talking about.
 * Integration with Albania section: Break up the second sentence (Tito saw...) and the sentence beginning "Many DAG fighters were Macedonian Slavs".
 * February 1948 meeting section: It might be worth breaking up the sentence beginning "Specifically, the USSR viewed" - it's a bit unwieldy.
 * First letter section: I suggest rewording and/or breaking up the sentence that begins "Stalin also criticised".
 * US aid section:
 * What do you mean by "to justify the effort"?
 * Sentence starting with "Even though the Yugoslavs": reword or break up.
 * Soviet actions section: Break up the sentence beginning "It was headed by Colonel General".


 * Again, this is a fascinating and well-researched article, and it's very close to meeting the GA criteria. Once the prose is tightened up, it'll be good to go. (Hopefully you'll get a copyedit from GOCE soon - that would probably be helpful.) Let me know if any of my suggestions are unclear. Thanks for your work on this article — I look forward to passing it to GA status very soon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out the specific problems with the prose. I tried to address them. The "to justify the effort" bit was a bit of stray text, that I have removed now. Unfortunately, there is no way to speed up GOCE response in any way, but I'm looking forward to their input whenever it may come since I would like to improve the article further to meet A-class criteria as well. I will re-read the changes I just made later in the afternoon and see if I can improve the prose any further. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're making great progress. Here are just a few more suggestions:
 * The sentence that begins "At the same time, it was tacitly approving" - it isn't really clear how restructuring the BRP relates to Bulgarian annexation. Perhaps it could be clarified?
 * I would consider eliminating the somewhat unwieldy sentence that begins "There were claims against Hungary" and instead adding that to your earlier sentence, e.g. "its territorial claims against most of its neighbours, including Hungary, Austria, and Italy." The reader can go to the article you linked on Yugoslav irredentism if more information is desired.
 * It might be helpful to explain briefly what the Cominform is.
 * The article contains a lot of acronyms, and it's easy for a casual reader to forget what they mean. I suppose this is to some extent inevitable, so don't worry too much about it, but you might consider, for instance, spelling out "Bulgarian Workers Party" each of the three times it appears. The reader can probably remember USSR, KPJ, PKSH, and DAG, but anything more than that will probably be forgotten. Again, don't spend too much time on it, but it's something to think about.
 * You're almost there! Give the article another thorough read-through, and the prose should more-or-less satisfactory. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

My final comments are below. As I indicated above, this is my first GA review, so I would appreciate knowing whether my review has been roughly comparable to the other ones you've experienced. If I can be of any further assistance to you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thank you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I conclude that this article meets the GA criteria, and I will therefore list it as a good article.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * The prose isn't FA-quality, but that's not the standard. The standard is that the prose be "clear and not confusing." See WP:GACN. On balance, I am satisfied that a reader will be able to understand what the article is saying with minimal difficulty, and that is enough to fulfill the criterion.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead adequately summarizes the article, and the layout conforms to policy. The words listed at MOS:WTW have been avoided. The MOS sections on fiction and list incorporation do not apply.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * The article is thoroughly cited, and all sources are reliable. The sources that were available online scrupulously support the statements for which they are cited. I will presume that the same is true of the offline sources.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * A run through Earwig's copyvio detector revealed no problems whatsoever.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The topic is covered in a detailed and comprehensive manner. Sufficient background is provided, and the significance and impact of the event are clearly explained.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All pictures are free-use.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Your hard work on this article is greatly appreciated.
 * All pictures are free-use.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Your hard work on this article is greatly appreciated.
 * Your hard work on this article is greatly appreciated.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking time to review this article. Your review was quite similar to earlier GARs I experienced in terms of attention to detail and its overall course. I found your feedback very helpful and I believe thath quality of the article, especially its prose, has benefited from the process. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)