Talk:Zdenko Blažeković

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleZdenko Blažeković has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 27, 2014Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 23, 2023.

Questions

At whose request was he extradited after the war? What was he charged with, based on what acts? What sort a trial was held (criminal, war tribunal), under whose authority? Was it fair? (Did he have counsel, other trappings of legal defense?) Magic♪piano 16:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Zdenko Blažeković/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 14:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got this one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rate
Attribute
 Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the
list incorporation
.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline
.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
audio
:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are
relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, the first sentence is too long, and communist should not have an initial capital.
  • the first para of "Command of the Ustaše University Centre and Ustaše Youth" needs to be broken up, it is far too long.
Better?
talk) 21:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi 23, sorry this has stalled, but I have been unable to express properly my issues with the article as it is. Timbouctou has raised a number of issues on the article talk page which I believe do need to be addressed. I am going to place this on hold for a week in the hope that those issues can be addressed in that period. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked said parts according to Tim's translation.
talk) 19:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Peacemaker has essentially disappeared, so I'm going to put this one back in the review queue. Wizardman 02:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dizdar et al

Basically, the entire article is a slightly expanded entry taken from page 41 of Tko je tko u NDH ("Who's Who of NDH"), a lexicon (that is, a

tertiary source) published in Croatia in 1997 and available for viewing at Scribd here
. As such, it lacks a lot of context needed to understand some of the statements. In addition, article creator was bold and translated some NDH-era Croatian expressions in a less than correct manner. For example:

My 2 cents, do as you please. Timbouctou (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. My GAN review has stalled, but it's largely because I couldn't put my finger on exactly what the issue was, and I believe your comments about the translations and lack of explanations help. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Zdenko Blažeković/GA2
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 00:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator:

talk
)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


1: Well-written

WP:LEAD
:

Check for

WP:LEAD
:

  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
  2. Check for Citations (
    WP:LEADCITE
    ):  Done
  3. Check for Introductory text:  Done
    • Check for Provide an accessible overview (
      MOS:INTRO
      ):  Done
    • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
    • Check for Opening paragraph (
      MOS:BEGIN
      ):  Done
      • Check for First sentence (
        WP:LEADSENTENCE
        ):  Done
      • Check for Format of the first sentence (
        MOS:BOLDTITLE
        ):  Done
      • Check for Proper names and titles:  Done
      • Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (
        MOS:BOLDSYN
        ): None
      • Check for Foreign language (
        MOS:FORLANG
        ): None
      • Check for Pronunciation: None
      • Check for Contextual links (
        MOS:CONTEXTLINK
        ):  Done
      • Check for Biographies: NA
      • Check for Organisms: NA
  4. Check for Biographies of living persons: NA
  5. Check for Alternative names (
    MOS:LEADALT
    ):  Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:
    • Check for Separate section usage:
  6. Check for Length (
    WP:LEADLENGTH
    ):  Done
  7. Check for Clutter (
    WP:LEADCLUTTER
    ): None
WP:LAYOUT
:
 Done

Check for

WP:LAYOUT
:  Done

  1. Check for Body sections:
    MOS:BODY
    .  Done
    • Check for Headings and sections:  Done
    • Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done
    • Check for Paragraphs (
      MOS:PARAGRAPHS
      ):  Done
  2. Check for Standard appendices and footers (
    MOS:APPENDIX
    ):  Done
    • Check for Order of sections (
      WP:ORDER
      ):  Done
    • Check for Works or publications:  Done
    • Check for See also section (
      MOS:SEEALSO
      ):  Done
    • Check for Notes and references (
      WP:FNNR
      ):  Done
    • Check for Further reading (
      WP:FURTHER
      ):  Done
    • Check for External links (
      WP:LAYOUTEL
      ):  Done
    • Check for Links to sister projects:  Done
    • Check for Navigation templates:  Done
  3. Check for Formatting:  Done
    • Check for Images (
      WP:LAYIM
      ):  Done
    • Check for Links:  Done
    • Check for Horizontal rule (
      WP:LINE
      ):  Done
WP:WTW
:
 Done

Check for

WP:WTW
:  Done

  1. Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done
    • Check for Puffery (
      WP:PEA
      ):  Done
    • Check for Contentious labels (
      WP:LABEL
      ):  Done
    • Check for Unsupported attributions (
      WP:WEASEL
      ):  Done
    • Check for Expressions of doubt (
      WP:ALLEGED
      ):  Done
    • Check for Editorializing (
      MOS:OPED
      ):  Done
    • Check for Synonyms for said (
      WP:SAY
      ):  Done
  2. Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done
    • Check for Euphemisms (
      WP:EUPHEMISM
      ):  Done
    • Check for Clichés and idioms (
      WP:IDIOM
      ):  Done
    • Check for Relative time references (
      WP:REALTIME
      ):  Done
    • Check for Neologisms (
      WP:PEA
      ): None
  3. Check for Offensive material (
    WP:F***
    ):  Done

Check for

WP:MOSFICT
:  Done

  1. Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done
    • Check for Primary and secondary information (
      WP:PASI
      ):  Done
    • Check for Contextual presentation (
      MOS:PLOT
      ):  Done
WP:EMBED
:
 Done
  • Prose is preferred over list (
    WP:PROSE
    ):
  • Check for Tables (
    MOS:TABLES
    ):


2: Verifiable with no original research

WP:RS
:
 Done

Check for

WP:RS
:  Done

Cross-checked with other FA:

21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)

  1. Check for the material (
    WP:RSVETTING
    ): (contentious)  Done
    • Is it contentious?: Yes
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
  2. Check for the author (
    WP:RSVETTING
    ):  Done
    • Who is the author?:
    • Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
    • What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
    • What else has the author published?:
    • Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
  3. Check for the publication (
    WP:RSVETTING
    ):  Done
  4. Check for Self-published sources (
    WP:SPS
    ):
WP:MINREF
:
 Done

Check for inline citations

WP:MINREF
:  Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
  2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
  3. Check for Contentious material about living persons (
    WP:BLP
    ): NA
WP:NOR
:
 Done
  1. Check for primary sources (
    WP:PRIMARY
    ):  Done
  2. Check for synthesis (
    WP:SYN
    ):  Done
  3. Check for original images (
    WP:OI
    ):  Done


3: Broad in its coverage

 Done

Cross-checked with other FA:

21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)

  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
    2. Check for Out of scope:
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (
      WP:OFFTOPIC
      ):
b.
Focused
:
 Done
  1. Check for Readability issues (
    WP:LENGTH
    ):
  2. Check for Article size (
    WP:TOO LONG!
    ):


4: Neutral

WP:NPOV
:
 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

  1. Check for POV (
    WP:YESPOV
    ):  Done
  2. Check for naming (
    WP:POVNAMING
    ):  Done
  3. Check for structure (
    WP:STRUCTURE
    ):  Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight (
    WP:DUE
    ):  Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects (
    WP:BALASPS
    ):  Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (
    WP:VALID
    ):  Done
  7. Check for Balance (
    WP:YESPOV
    ):  Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone (
    WP:IMPARTIAL
    ):  Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (
    WP:SUBJECTIVE
    ):  Done
  10. Check for Words to watch (
    WP:YESPOV
    ):  Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (
    WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
    ):  Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (
    WP:PSCI
    ): None
  13. Check for Religion (
    WP:RNPOV
    ): None


5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (NFC with a valid FUR)


As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA. Thanks, 23 editor, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles.

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zdenko_Blažeković&oldid=1212962720"