Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC).

Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it successfully underwent a MILHIST A-Class in April this year and I believe it meets the FA criteria. In 1941, Hungary participated in the invasion of Yugoslavia to get back some territories taken away in the post-WWI Treaty of Trianon. This article explores what happened when the Hungarians occupied then annexed those territories between 1941 and 1944. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: I copy-edited some of this article about six months ago. I must say I think it's comprehensive and well-written and I think it meets all FA criteria. 23 editor (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, 23. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
 * "Despite the very limited resistance"—remove "the"? Not sure about "very".
 * checked the source and changed it to sporadic (which is the word used by the source to describe the fighting)


 * Is the Yugoslavia flag relevant historically (infobox)?
 * that was the flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the country whose territory was occupied and annexed, so, yes.


 * Consistent en dashes in the demographics table?
 * Done.


 * Do you have control of the source for the map (1939–41)? The text is tiny-weeny.
 * I don't, and maps are not my thing. I've increased it to 350px, which is probably the limit. I'll see what I can get done re: the font.


 * I've corrected the typography for "German–Italian mediation" (they're parallel items, yes?).
 * you've lost me, but I think Antidiskriminator has sorted it?

Tony  (talk)  08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * addressed so far, will see what I can do about the map though.
 * map fixed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Check alphabetization of References
 * Don't mix cite book and citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks Nikki. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not going to do a full review, but the article presently does not explain the basic background well. The last sentence of the lead (pretty much repeated as the last sentence in the article), explaining where the territories are in modern terms, should be in summarized in the first para of the lead (ie saying which modern countries were affected). Equally the nom rightly says "to get back some territories taken away in the post-WWI Treaty of Trianon", which was certainly the point as far as the Hungarians were concerned, but I can't see this point clearly made in the lead or background sections. Presumably all the territory occupied had been Hungarian before 1920? The article doesn't state this I think. Some spelling out needed for this complicated area, unfamiliar to most readers. The map showing the expansion of Hungary in between the wars & in WWII should really be balanced with one showing its contraction at Trianon (there seems plenty of room). The fate of the Volksdeutsche at the end of the war is dealt with but not that of the Hungarians, though I see from the geographical articles that minority populations remain in some of them. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for your constructive comments, it certainly is a complex area. I will start addressing them shortly, and will note here when I believe I have done that. A map has already been added to show the territory lost as a result of Trianon. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added further information to address your comments. Let me know if you consider anything needs more detail? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks, covering all my points except the fate of the general Hungarian population of the occupied areas after the war, which I accept may be tricky to source. In general I think the article looks FA quality, but I'm not going to do a full review. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I managed to dig a bit more out of Portmann regarding the estimated numbers of Hungarians killed, and numbers that left Vojvodina after the war. I haven't been able to anything on the fate of the Hungarians in the western territories along the Mura. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Put cites in numerical order: [34][17][24]
 * Not real fond of one sentence paragraphs. See if you can fold them into other ones.
 * Typo .[41].
 * Needs a comma after "them": between 25,000 and 60,000 of them mostly to Serbia
 * This is confusing: applied selectively due to the military then civilian administration changes
 * This doesn't match the 2nd to last para of the aftermath section: The case against them was re-opened after the German occupation and they were all found not guilty
 * Put the titles in title case: Coppa, Frank, Jordan, Kadar, Pearson, Pogany, Udovicki, Segel
 * In general add US states to publisher locations except for New York, Boston or Chicago.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Image Review
 * Images have appropriate licenses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Sturm. I believe I have addressed all your comments thus far. Here are my edits. To clarify, when the Germans occupied Hungary in March 1944 after the Hungarian government began to have a change of heart about sticking with the Axis, they re-tried the suspects who were acquitted. After the area reverted to Yugoslav control, the new communist Hungarian government tried them, found them guilty then handed them over to the Yugoslavs who tried them yet again, then executed them. It works out that they faced four trials for the same actions. A bit convoluted, I know. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've clarified in the text about the series of trials, hopefully it is a bit clearer now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Minor point, not anything you actually need to change, but I never link places of publication because you will often get multiple links to the same city. But that's just a personal preference.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * "The Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories was the military occupation then annexation": No matter what definition you use for "occupation", occupation can't be the same thing as occupation plus annexation.
 * "Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories": There's a potential problem with the title. For instance, the title "German invasion of French territories" (or vice-versa) would be considered a non-neutral title for an article on a German or French invasion of Alsace-Lorraine. Of course, it's harder to make this work if the territory being invaded is made up of parts of 4 named regions ... if you can describe the region using only one or two names, that would be better.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "They now form": technically, a WP:DATED violation, though I don't know what's supposed to be an improvement. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you are saying, there certainly are fairly complex precision and brevity issues here, as well as neutrality issues. The Hungarians called these territories the "Southern Territories" or "Delvidek", but that is entirely a Hungarian POV. So far as I know that is the only all-encompassing term covering all the territories. Given the history of the regions involved, and the fact that the Germans occupied all of these territories plus the rest of Hungary in March 1944, it seems necessary to leave Hungarian in the title and explain either that this was during WWII or that they were Yugoslav territories. The more neutral approach is probably to drop Yugoslav. To include a reasonable description of the territories and accommodate the complexity, a title like "Hungarian occupation and annexation of Bačka, Baranja, Međimurje and Prekmurje during World War II" would cover it. It is rather long. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Barbarossa could hardly be called a "Hungarian offensive", how about Hungarian offensives in World War II? - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the title. These territories were Yugoslav when occupied and the Hungarian government was forced post-war to recognise that fact, which they had recognised before invading them anyway. The Hungarian gov't thought they should be Hungarian, but it did not claim that they were. We will be using some POV or other to name these territories, and since "occupation" is not an evaluative term it is hardly a big deal if we choose the perspective of the victors (whose view Hungary was forced to accept anyway). Srnec (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The issues I see with "Hungarian offensives in World War II" are that Hungary did engage in a number of offensives as part of the Axis army on the Eastern Front up until Stalingrad, in the aftermath of which it was destroyed. Particularly notable was the Hungarian involvement in the Battle of Uman. The Hungarians also invaded and annexed parts of their other neighbours under the Vienna Awards, although we would be drawing a long bow to call them "offensives" as there was little fighting. Nevertheless, for the former reason, I don't think your suggestion is sufficiently precise. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Former review by Quadell

When I first reviewed this article I found instances of close-paraphrasing, and I opposed for that reason. Since then, the nominator has comprehensively fixed all the sections I found with potential problems. I have looked through several additional sections and compare the article's text to the text in the source, and I have found no other close paraphrasing problems. I am convinced that this is no longer an issue. (The other issues I brought up have also been addressed, though they were less important.)

I would be willing to do a full review now, but I'm not sure it's necessary. The nomination has been open a long time now, and has received plenty of comments from others. Preliminarily, I would say:
 * I'm not sure the list of name changes is useful, and it could be unnecessary detail.
 * It was included to provide context regarding the fact that the areas were formerly Hungarian ruled and many had Hungarian names.


 * It's possible that the long "Aftermath" section could be subsectioned into separate subtopics.
 * Done, please let me know what you think?


 * The beginning of "Demographics" is confusing, since I feel like we jump from 1928 to 1941 without warning. Perhaps it would be clearer if it began "By the time Hungary occupied these sections of Yugoslavia", or some other introduction.
 * I have moved the first sentence further down the article, hopefully it is less clunky now.

But these are only suggestions I hope are helpful, and this is not a full review.

For now I will neither support nor oppose. If this nomination is still open this weekend, and if it would be useful, I'm willing to do a more full review. I've collapsed my former review below. – Quadell (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your time and patience in making comments and engaging in discussion about them. I will have a look at your additional comments above and address them. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Pending (from Quadell). Aside from numerous minor opportunities for improvement, there are two significant problems that I don't believe can might or might not be fixed in the amount of time that this FAC is likely to be open.

First, there isn't a map that clearly shows the borders of the Backa, Baranja, Medimurje and Prekmurje regions. The maps show where the occupied territory was as a whole, but the difference between Backa and Baranja, or between Medimurje and Prekmurje, is never shown. In an article about these four territories, that's a rather serious omission. A map should be included to show the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the four occupied territories clearly delineated, and the borders of Hungary. Secondly, there is a consistent sourcing problem in the article. There are a few statements that are not supported by the sources, such as in "Resistance and repression", where I can't find any support for the statement that time in a concentration camp was "usually followed by expulsion to the NDH or the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". But far more often, there are cases of close paraphrasing, where the material in a single source is altered in a superficial way and copied into a paragraph of the article, reproducing many of the characteristic phrases. This sometimes leads to the POV of the source being reproduced, unchallenged, in the article. Sometimes a subject or term was previously defined in the soure, and so is suddenly mentioned in a given paragraph there, and in those cases the same subject or term appears to come out of nowhere in the article, undefined. Here are some examples.
 * I've asked a map maker I have worked with before to take this work on.
 * That's good to hear. I still can't decide if this issue is enough to oppose on. The recently added map is very close. – Quadell (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We now have an overall occupied Yugoslavia map in the infobox, a Trianon map, a Hungarian expansions map, and a map of the four areas down to Hungarian district level. If there are tweaks you think are necessary to the recently added map, I'm sure the maker would be happy to do them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lemkin says "The Hungarian authorities introduced a genocide policy by endeavoring to impose a Hungarian pattern upon these territories." The Wikipedia article says "The Hungarian authorities immediately introduced genocidal policies which endeavored to 'impose a Hungarian pattern' on them." That's very minimal change. Further, "Hungarian pattern" is not defined, and the reader is left with no idea what this means. And the word "genocide", copied from the source, is obviously contested. (The rest of the paragraph only describe Serbs being forced to leave the territories.) All of these problems are caused by copying from a single source without adequately evaluating it.
 * I have to take issue with aspects of this comment. The close paraphrasing bit is fine and will be has been addressed. However, you have indicated that Lemkin's use of the word "genocide" is "obviously contested" and that it is "copied". Where has it been "obviously contested"? Lemkin was the guy that coined and defined "genocide", and he calls it just that. It is not plagiarism to call it "genocide" just because that is the word he uses. In the absence of reliable sources challenging Lemkin's description of it as "genocide", on what policy basis are we permitted to "adequately evaluate" and modify what Lemkin said? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My concerns were that (a) there was close paraphrasing, and (b) the text referred to the event as "genocide" in an unqualified way. Your edits have solved both problems with this section. In particular, by specifying that it is Lemkin's analysis, and by giving the reader info on why Lemkins views are relevant, you have presented the view in a NPOV way. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Tomasevich reports how Horthy later told Americans he "had not wanted to attack Yugoslavia" but was "forced" due to "disorders and the massacre of Hungarians in Backa." (Tomasevich is not quoting Horthy here, but merely giving his interpretation of Horthy's statement.) Tomasevich then flatly states that Horthy's claim "was not true", although that's the author's POV. (It's hard to say what Horthy really wanted, and Tomasevich only weakly supports the accusation.) Our article says "Horthy falsely claimed that he had not wanted to invade Yugoslavia, but that his hand was forced by disorder and the massacre of Hungarians in Backa". This close paraphrase copies the source's POV.
 * What a strange idea. I have no idea what you mean by "copying the author's POV". There are no reliable sources I am aware of that contradict Tomasevich's statement that Horthy was lying about the disorder and massacres, Tomasevich of course being one of the most influential scholars on Yugoslavia during WWII. Certainly the language here is pretty closely paraphrased, and that has now been fixed, but all that is necessary here is to provide in-text attribution to Tomasevich for the statement that Horthy was not telling the truth. We all have an opinion, including academic's, but I am concerned that you appear to think that it is in some way inappropriate for Tomasevich to identify postfacto statements by Horthy as false. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was inappropriate for our article to state that Horthy was lying. The article now states that Tomasevich concluded that Horthy was lying, which is a very different statement. The NPOV concerns here have thus been addressed, although I still think the wording could be improved for smoother prose. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Tomasevich says educated Serbs and Croats were "excluded from appropriate employment", and our article say they "were basically excluded from appropriate employment", a characteristic phrase.
 * addressed.


 * The last paragraph in Administration is a close paraphrase of the first full paragraph on page 172 of Tomasevich. Note the phrases "economically strong" vs. "economically the... strongest", "completely under the influence of the Nazi Party" vs. "completely under Nazi influence", "came to the attention of Adolf Hitler" vs. "came to Hitler's attention", "virtually a state within a state" vs. "almost a state within a state", etc.
 * addressed.
 * I'm still not sure that the issue has been adequately addressed. On the one hand, the wording is now different, and we have to follow the sources afterall. But on the other hand, many of the same ideas are still present in a very similar way in the same order, from one paragraph in the source to one paragraph in our article. I have asked for an outside opinion by a Wikipedia who specializes in these concerns, to see if the rewriting here is sufficient. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: Another editor has given an outside opinion on this paragraph. See the comment at User talk:Moonriddengirl. – Quadell (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to address MRG's observation. Let me know what you think? I'm still working through the close paraphrasing (there are a hell of a lot of sources used in this article). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Lemkin states that relations between Hungary and Yugoslavia were "greatly strained" until the signing of the 1940 treaty, and the Background section says relations were "greatly strained" until the same event. Note that our article mentions the 1940 treaty a couple sections before the "Developments 1938–1941" section, presumably because that's where the source mentions it.
 * No idea why you would "presume" that. There has been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing about the chronology and I daresay that this was merely overlooked. Fixed.
 * Consider "throughout the 1930s", which would tie it up nicely without jumping ahead. Just a suggestion, not necessary. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The first time our article mentions "The Partisans" (with a capital P), it comes mid-paragraph in the "Resistance and repression" section, without defining who the group is or why the proper noun is used here. Our article simply states that they "were never strong in Backa and Baranja because the lowlands did not lend themselves to guerilla warfare, and because South Slavs only made up one-third of the regional population", as if we would how the Partisans relate to lowland guerilla fighting and/or the South Slavs. The reason becomes clear when you read the source, Tomasevich, who states mid-paragraph that "The Partisan movement was never as strong in Backa" because "the flat land was not suitable for... guerilla warfare" and "the South Slavic population constituted only a little more than one-third of the total population." Of course Tomasevich had previously introduced the Partisans and the South Slavs much earlier in the book, so it makes sense there.
 * has been addressed. The issue of the initial capitalisation of "Partisans" has been addressed ad nauseum elsewhere, and I don't propose to repeat this discussion here, suffice to say that is how the vast majority of reliable sources refer to them.
 * Capital-P Partisans is fine, so long as they are appropriately introduced in the article. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe there are other instances of close copying, but these were simply the ones I found before I knew I could not support the FAC. In my opinion, every section of the article needs to be reexamined, compared to the sources, and made to appropriately amalgamate and summarize the available information without inadvertent plagiarism. I don't believe anyone involved acted in bad faith, but I don't think this represents the best of Wikipedia at this point either. – Quadell (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, you've made some interesting observations. I consider some of your points are quite valid, however some of it is in my view a bit presumptuous or pedantic, and in a few cases I consider it inaccurate or misguided. I am very concerned that you are opposing on the basis of timeframe, given this article may well have been open for a month, but only started to attract detailed reviews a week ago. Nevertheless, I will attempt to address all your points as soon as possible, particularly around the map and the close paraphrasing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed the specific comments you have made, and will now go through the article to ensure that any other instances of "close paraphrasing" are addressed. It may take a couple of days for the map maker to finalise his product, so I will use that time to do the paraphrasing checks. Please let me know your responses to my comments above, I am happy to address any further comments you may make, and will promptly address any of the minor improvements you might care to suggest. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're continuing to work on this, but I would feel better if someone who didn't consider close-paraphrasing concerns to be "presumptuous or pedantic" were comparing the sources to make sure all instances of close-paraphrasing are removed. – Quadell (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I correct you there? At no stage did I say that I thought your comments on paraphrasing were presumptuous or pedantic. I was quite clear in my responses where I considered you made an unfounded presumption about why something was where it was. My concerns with your comments are not around your pointing out of paraphrasing, although we may not entirely agree on what constitutes close paraphrasing in all cases. My main concerns are around what I consider quite strange ideas about "copying POV" from a single source, and the scope for editors to "adequately evaluate" sources, which sounds a lot like WP:OR to me. Let's cut to the chase here. In the complete absence of any reliable published source that challenges Lemkin's view that the Hungarians policies in these territories were "genocidal", you opined that the statement was "obviously contested". What did you base that on? If you make a comment in a review, you need to be able to back it up. There are similarly strange ideas behind your labelling the inclusion of Tomasevich's observation about Horthy as "the author's POV". Admittedly, I have only been editing on WP for less than two years, but I have never struck these strange ideas before. Nevertheless, if you needed an indication of my good faith, I have attempted to address those comments by expanding the material and/or adding greater context. So, you may not support this nomination or even withdraw your opposition to it, regardless of what improvements are made, and frankly that's just fine with me, but regardless of how long you have been on WP, you can't just make a comment on a FAC review and not be able to back it up. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any concerns about you motives or good faith, as I said. I'm glad you consider the close-paraphrase concerns serious enough to merit appropriate action. I am certainly impressed to see the improvements you have made thus far, though I remain pessimistic: it may be difficult to refactor the statements in the article to better summarize the sources, while at the same time, keeping the article stable enough that previous reviews are still relevant. If the article does meet all criteria in the time the FAC is open, I'll be gratified. Please let me know when you think the close-paraphrasing concerns have been addressed throughout the article, and I'll give it another look. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will do. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have now completed my check for close paraphrasing and I think I have addressed the issue. Let me know if you have any other concerns, and of course, if you believe there are any further issues with close paraphrasing. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. I will look it over today or tomorrow. – Quadell (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Made a read through earlier this week and I find this article to be as complete as it could be expected by a FA article. I found all information I oculd possibly be needing of this subject and the references checked out. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * I may be nitpicking, but the infobox specifies "15 March 1944" as the day when Germany occupied the territories discussed by the article. Still, the article prose (and its lead) specify merely "March 1944" (no day info given).--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * Per MOS:YEAR year ranges like 1938–1941 should be presented as 1938–41.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * If the first issue was not nitpicking, this one surely is: The area size figures in the "Geography" section (size of occupied territories of Bačka, Baranja and Međimurje+Prekmurje in km2 don't add up to the total provided - due to rounding obviously (I assume the original figures you had were in sq miles). Perhaps the individual territories' figures need a decimal to fix this? Or is there a typo somewhere?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Typo. Fixed.
 * Should the Davor Kovačić ref have an active url? (If so, it's here. - Don't want to mess up any refs, so I'm leaving this up to you)--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * On a further note, the Kovačić ref should probably carry journal publisher and ISSN info. It may be found here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * Ditto for Szabó. I see the info is to be found at the url provided.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * The body identified by acronym "NOO" carries, as far as I can tell, incorrect translation. Well, at least into Croatian, but I believe the same goes for Serbian (although I might be wrong on that one). The NOOs were "narodnooslobodilački odbori" (plural), "narodnooslobodilački odbor" (singular). The name may be verified here, p. 49 - the article author was kind enough to provide list of abbreviations. On p.50 of the same article (Giron) there's an example of English translation of the term: "National Liberation Committee" - therefore I think the "people's" formulation should be amended accordingly. Granted, there may be a source using "People's" formulation - if there is one, I'm fine with either English term. I searched the SRCE database for the "narodni odbor oslobođenja" here and found zero results, while "narodnooslobodilački odbor" search here returned 27 articles.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed this one. I think there is a divide amongst scholars on this one. Portmann (the relevant source) uses "people's", as does Hoare (who lists it in his glossary).
 * On a further note on the NOOs, I believe the non-English term should be in italics - at least that's how lang templates render translations.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to, but I can't figure out what is happening here. The lang template is correct so far as I can tell, but it isn't rendering it in italics.
 * To end, I think, as I started - nitpicking: I believe the Hungarian-Yugoslav border should employ an En dash per MOS:ENDASH instead of the hyphen. I'm not 100% sure on this one, but the MoS even has an example of "an Italian–Swiss border crossing", so I think that may apply. Furthermore, the article as it is right now contains a mention of German–Yugoslav border therefore one of the two need be modified.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * Thanks Tom, at FAC I am more than happy to put the "nitpicks" to rights. They are all incremental improvements, and I'll get onto them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All addressed except the italics in the lang template (I'll keep investigating), cheers. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely leave any minor outstanding points to be acted upon outside of FAC, so will be promoting this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.