Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav coup d'état/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2018.

Yugoslav coup d'état

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is another from a series I've been working on about the events surrounding the 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, and will hopefully form part of a Featured topic on the subject eventually. The coup was essentially bloodless, and was encouraged by both British and Soviet intelligence services. It led directly to Hitler's decision to invade and partition Yugoslavia, and thereby contributed to the fractious politics of the Yugoslav government-in-exile, and to the Yugoslav civil war that raged from 1941 to 1945. This article went through Milhist ACR earlier this year, during which it was expanded with some recent scholarship. All comments gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review
 * Very little is said on the matter of the legacy of the date. In yugoslav-communist times this coup was celebrated, while in contemporary serbian historiography it is disputed (between the 2 branches on serbian historiography). And also when it comes to contemporary society, its a disputed date (1 side says its a tragic day, the other its a monument to anti-fascism). Also, very little prominence in the article is given to the role of the Yugoslav Communist party in the coup, which is kinda a disputed topic aswell. So, in conclusion, a big chunk of the history of this coup is not merely the events of that day, but also the historiographical evaluation, and the wider societal reception of it (by the post-war yugoslav society, as well as the contemporary one, which very differ). Because the article doesn't cover these important aspects, i don't think it fulfills the criteria of a featured article. --Ivan VA (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Ivan VA's comments about comprehensiveness are well-founded, and the historiography aspect needs more work. I'd like to withdraw this nom for now, as I'll need to marshal some sources to do that aspect justice. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't use fixed px sizes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  14:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.