Attempted review

[edit]

@Tomobe03: I am totally unfamiliar with the history of the founding of Yugoslavia, so I'm struggling to understand the events described in this article. It is difficult for me to assess the article for B class, if I am confused about exactly what was going on. After reading this article, it seemed as if the Geneva Declaration was agreed upon by its participants and given a blessing by the French government. However, shortly afterward the agreement was rejected by the Serbian government and its diplomats. Exploiting the advance of the Italian Army and the chaos at the end of World War I, the Serbs pressured the diplomats representing the other groups (Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, etc.) to agree to unification without resolving exactly how this was to occur. Is my interpretation correct? Perhaps my confusion would be cleared up if there was a brief explanation of what happened next. Did the Serbian monarchy become the dominant power? Were the other parties unhappy with the new arrangement? Did this have anything to do with the rapid collapse of Yugoslavia in the face of Nazi invasion in 1941? Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djmaschek: Thanks for looking at this. Your interpretation of the events regarding the Geneva Declaration is correct. I'll add a brief explanation of what happened next as you suggest, although it will probably be difficult to establish a direct causal link with the April 1941 collapse - I'll have a look though. It seems to me that the article lacks a short paragraph or so on (likely or possible) impact of the repudiation of the Geneva Declaration on the politics of Yugoslavia. I'll write one in a day or so and how about I ping you then to have another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomobe03: Yes, I agree it would be a stretch to connect 1918 and 1941 events, and not necessary. But as you propose, a paragraph explaining the shorter-term political consequences of unification after repudiation of the Geneva Declaration would, I think, clear up any questions by me or other readers. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B class review

[edit]

@Tomobe03: B class. It's good enough for B class. However, if you wish to promote this to GA class, it really needs that extra paragraph at the end explaining what happened next. Without it, the Geneva Declaration is merely a failed document, when it actually was an interesting attempt to form a new country that got short-circuited by politics. Djmaschek (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djmaschek: Thanks for the tip. I'll certainly add the info before GAN, but I'm just swamped by RL work today.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Geneva Declaration (1918)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    Will conduct a source spotcheck.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig has plagiarism of 18%.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]
Image issues

File:Krfska.jpg, File:Portrait of Ante Trumbić.jpg, and File:NikolaPasic--balkancockpitpol00pric 0191.png are missing half of their license.

Source spotcheck (6 random citations checked, don't have access to Janković 1964 which I will AGF on)

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to do this review. I will try to address any concerns regarding the article as quickly as possible. Tomobe03 (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tomobe03, great article! I'll put it on hold while you address the image issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm generally away from my computer today and tomorrow, but I expect to address this on Friday (3 March). Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I managed to fix all image issues except "Krfska". I hope to get to that one and other issues by tomorrow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "Krfska" image provisionally. I think it is reasonable to assume it was published in early 1920s at the latest (if not in 1917, but I have not managed to find the publication data right now. I intend to restore the image to the article once the information is found. I have removed the irrelevant cite and therefore I think I have addressed all the issues raised in this GAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Promoting now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Tomobe03 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 21:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Geneva Declaration (1918); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Reworded the sentence you pointed out just to be on the safe side.Tomobe03 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Since you proposed it, how about "... that during talks on the creation of the Geneva Declaration, Ante Trumbić proposed a common government in which there would be the government of Serbia and a National Council?". Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that explains much to a reader who is unfamiliar with the subject. Noting here that the paraphrase I mentioned has been dealt with. CMD (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: status report? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: The main issue is that i'm seemingly unable to create a good enough hook for this nom. It's definitely possible but my brain seems to turn off whenever I try thinking of one. If I or someone else can't create another hook then I guess I'd have to withdraw. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a drive-by comment, but how about something like ALT3: ... that the President of Serbia signed the 1918 Geneva Declaration after intervention from the President of France? (Don't think I need to put 'then' before either "President of" - context should make it clear.)--Launchballer 23:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader who found the article interesting I'd rather this wasn't abandoned. Hooky aspects to me included the debate over federalisation, the potential for keeping Austria-Hungary, the tenuous State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, the dual oaths/bodies, and the abandonment leaving the new kingdom constitutionless. CMD (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think Launchballer's works well enough. Though Chipmunkdavis still needs to review it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign language and offline source, so taking it on good faith. Rereading I suppose there's some interest in diplomatic arms twisting, a promoter can provide a second opinion but I think we can move past this stage. CMD (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories