Timbouctou (talk | contribs) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
::Timbouctou has deliberately searched out another point of conflict with me on another article. Carefully choosing an edit I opposed and supporting it. There are now sufficient grounds to report. Tell me, Tim, am I "self absorbed"? :) --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 10:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
::Timbouctou has deliberately searched out another point of conflict with me on another article. Carefully choosing an edit I opposed and supporting it. There are now sufficient grounds to report. Tell me, Tim, am I "self absorbed"? :) --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 10:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Your psychiatrist should know. In any case I'm removing the entry as it has no relevance to the article and you - the main proponent of keeping it in the info box - failed to provide any reasoning behind it. Edit summaries such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ante_Paveli%C4%87&diff=419976004&oldid=419971725 this one] are nonsensical. Cheers. [[User:Timbouctou|''<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'><em>Timbouctou</em></span>]] ([[User talk:Timbouctou|''<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'><em>talk</em></span>]]) 10:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:14, 8 April 2011
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Fascism
|
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Blatant Forgery
Ante Pavelić (14 July 1889 – 28 December 1959) was a Croatian fascist leader,[1] revolutionary,[2] ...
Revolutionary?!
Read the referenced article here
--166.32.193.81 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- It originally said "revolutionist", which is how Britannica described him, probably in the political sense of the word, e.g. he advocated abrupt, rapid, and drastic political changes (as opposed to reformists). User:Drmies, probably unfamiliar with the political definition of the word, changed it to "revolutionary", perhaps referring to the fact that Pavelić's organization called itself "revolutionary" or perhaps because he thought it was a case of mistranslation. I personally would not call him a revolutionary as AP never led any sort of popular revolution or uprising, which is what the term usually means colloquially, comparable to Fidel Castro or Che Guevara or Robespierre. On the other hand he certainly was a revolutionist in the ideological sense of the word, but since most lay people are unlikely to be familiar with the semantic nuances of the term, it is debatable whether it should be used in the article lede at all. Timbouctou 19:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, not that way. Britannica is not referenced here, rather World fascism: a historical encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires! World fascism: a historical encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires does not say "revolutionary" ever. --166.32.193.81 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure you could find a number of sources calling him this or that but the general agreement (which is reflected in the Britannica article) is that he was a fascist who sought to bring about political change in an abrupt (e.g. revolutionist) manner. Whether this should be phrased that way in Wikipedia or Britannica is a different matter entirely. Timbouctou 16:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the article's history, "revolutionist" was added based on what Britannica said. So, adding the extra ref using the World Fascism book may not have been needed because it was already sourced. The lead should correctly source the term to Britannica if the book doesn't use the word "revolutionist" to describe him. Spellcast (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from AdamFsmith, 25 February 2011
{{edit semi-protected}}
Small issue with tense - last paragraph of the post-war section states that he "lives" in Spain, instead of "lived".
AdamFsmith (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ante Pavelić/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kebeta (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I am planning to review this article. --Kebeta (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Big problems
- Some work has been done to improve this article, but unfortunatley I believe that there is still quite a way to go. IMHO this meets the GA quick-fail criteria as large sections are unreferenced and therefore fails Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- The other problem is {{copy edit}} tag, which I think is a valid one, which also meets the GA quick-fail criteria.
Minor problems
- The lead is short, take a look at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
- The topic is slightly treated in non-neutral way.
Not done - can you be more correct with this, so I can fix those things...?--Wustenfuchs 11:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- The structure of the article could be improved. Section 'Ustaše regime' looks to big, maybe a subsection there?
Not done - Few chaps tried this, but ther are no good way to devide the section...--Wustenfuchs 11:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise.
- Inconsistent referenced style, some inline citations have a page number, some don't...Book references need the author, publishing date and page number and preferably should include the publisher, city of publication and ISBN.
- Wikilinks should only be made if they are relevant to the context. Common words do not need wikilinking.
- It is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.
Not done, I don't think that's one of the conditions, I needed to do so in order to make article more "readable". Just look at that government image, and those below.--Wustenfuchs 11:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images, like in 'Ustaše regime' section.
- It would be nice to have more images in the article, maybe a map of NDH, or another image of Ante Pavelić...
Done I added some images long time ago... But ther aren't so many pics of him.--Wustenfuchs 11:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
There are also many other minor problems, but this is just to get you going. Unfortunately, given the amount of work required I am going to have to fail this rather than place it on hold. However, I do believe that one day soon, this could be brought up to GA standard, and I would encourage the editors to add the citations required and then maybe request a peer review before putting it up for another GA nomination. However, although a quick fail, I added some minor problems that could help for another GA Review. Since this is my first GA Review, I invite other editors to corect me in assesment if they think that this article should not be failed. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ideas to improve
I was reading the article, and agreing with all Kebeta has pointed out, I just found some other minor issues, that I touht may be usufull to mention here:
- In the section "Birth and education", his health problems are mentioned a number of times, but sounds stange to never specify them.
- In the "Rise in politics" section, it´s said that he "became vice-president of the Croatian Bar Association.". I wan´t be exagerating if I would say that some readers may think that "Bar" means Pubs... Some short explanation on what the association was would be helpfull. In the next sentence, it would be usefull just to say who Pašić was, so the relation between them makes sence. Also, somewhere in the early part of this section feels like the transition from Austro-Hungary to Yugoslavia is missing. I mean, all of us know when Yugoslavia started, but the less informed readers may not.
- In the "Life in exile" section, in the sentence about the Velebit Uprising, the word "scared" sounds a bit silly. I mean, the text goes well, then sudently here... I don´t know, I think it could be better worded.
- In the "Ustaše regime", under the Croatian-Italian relations, the word "fascist terror" in the sentence ending with "and those areas were under Italianization and fascist terror" escapes from the rest of the narrative. It should be replaced with something more convenient, or eliminated. The following sentences also lack some sence, seem POV and some are gramatically incorrect.
- I did some edits in this section to facilitate grammar fluidity, however, the section needs more content work. Also, as well recomended by Kebeta, it´s too large, and could easily be divided into sections.
Not done I can't find places wher I would devide this section, your help would be good. --Wustenfuchs 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also, some editor used several times the expression "scared". It could be replace by "affraid", or some other options...
- "... and reader of papers in that time could get impression that only job of pope was hiding Ustaša's Poglavnik..." Puhhh, no comment.
- The post-war part looks good.
Resumingly, some parts, specially the ones regarding WWII need to be brought out of POV. They are not many, but in few cases the "cheering feeling" is still possible to see. The grammar is clearly better in some parts, and bad in others. Some parts have repetitivness, some other lack explanation. I personally think that the part of the reasons behind the Croatian discontent in the pre-WWII period and the subsequent acceptance of the regime is worth exploring a little bit more. The rest was already said by Kebeta and my comment here was completelly donne as complementary to his observations. Hoping that my critics contribute to bring this article to the desired level, I finish my comment. FkpCascais (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I´ll see if I can tonight spare some time to give you some options on how to divide the section. I´ll post the option/s here so we can discussed them. FkpCascais (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I can wait.--Wustenfuchs 21:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I´m having troubles to provide any ideas since it is basically all arounf WWII. I initially touth possible having some sort of chronological subsections (Beggining of war, ...) but they are hard to name and it doesn´t sound like a good idea with the text we have. We could go in a different way, to subtitles of the tipe ("Internal policies", "International relations", etc.) but we would have to change the text then but anyway, that would be more related with the regime itself than with AP. The only reasonable idea I came out now is to begin with "World War II" at begining, and an "Aftermath" (or End of war, or similar) undersection with the last paragraph... I´m just out of ideas... Kebeta, help? Wustenfuchs, any other or complementary ideas? FkpCascais (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
After you wroted that you will find a solution for this, I tried my self to see a places wher he can split a section, but I could not get any ideas, so I waited you to do that. I think that we could solve this problem if we could find more about Pavelić in WW2, so I tried that with Enlish books, but it doesn't work because all of those sources deal with general history of NDH at the time... But still, I'll do what I can do. If Kebeta has any idea maybe...--Wustenfuchs 21:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Protection
Protected for 3 days due to edit warring over the info-box. Shouldn't take long to sort it out as you have already been discussing it on talkpages. Then it can be unprotected. Please remember all Balkans articles are subject to ArbCom enforcement procedures.Fainites barleyscribs 13:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok Fainites, me and DIREKTOR have made a compromise. You can unlock the article now, it seams we solve this out far earlier. :) --Wustenfuchs 18:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Fainites barleyscribs 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Heavily degraded content
Previous article content was much better. The existing content is heavily marred by pro-ustashe content coming from Croatian sources. Notable historians like Broszat, Tomasevic, Shelack are not cited. Pavelic was a terrorist and a brigand most of his life and, by no means, a revolutionary. His short political activity hardly can be justified to classify him as a politician. Then there is a huge amount of irrelevant text while the murderous nature of his regime was marginalized, and much of previous text about crimes of his regime removed. Instead fairly talking about victims, the author follows pure pro-ustashe line: ustashe know how much ustashe killed.
This is the English language Wikipedia and shall be free of nationalistic attitude coming from purely nationalistic sources.--71.178.103.23 (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Children?
Is there any particular reason for listing his children in the info box, considering that not a single one of them is notable in their own right? None of the examples shown at Template:Infobox officeholder/example use this parameter. Timbouctou (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I supose someone just followed the exemple of Josip Broz Tito. FkpCascais (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah. Or Barack Obama. Good examples, both.
- Timbouctou has deliberately searched out another point of conflict with me on another article. Carefully choosing an edit I opposed and supporting it. There are now sufficient grounds to report. Tell me, Tim, am I "self absorbed"? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your psychiatrist should know. In any case I'm removing the entry as it has no relevance to the article and you - the main proponent of keeping it in the info box - failed to provide any reasoning behind it. Edit summaries such as this one are nonsensical. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Timbouctou has deliberately searched out another point of conflict with me on another article. Carefully choosing an edit I opposed and supporting it. There are now sufficient grounds to report. Tell me, Tim, am I "self absorbed"? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)