This review is transcluded from Talk:Croatian Committee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 17:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'm happy to take this article on for review and excited to learn more about this early Croatian nationalist organisation. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• "Following the 3 November 1918 Armistice of Villa Giusti, the Austro-Hungarian surrender," It wasn't a surrender, it was an armistice. The cited source doesn't describe it as a surrender either.
• (subsequently reformed as the Royal Yugoslav Army) no need for this extra detail.
• Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
• "The short-lived state, shortly before seeking a union with the Kingdom of Serbia to establish the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later renamed Yugoslavia), laid a competing claim to the eastern Adriatic to counter the Italian demands." We're about to mention the formation of the KSCS later, so best keep this sentence concise; i.e. "The short-lived state laid a competing claim to the eastern Adriatic to counter the Italian demands."
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified, although it seems this information is across more pages; double check the page numbers.
• "The Creation of Yugoslavia was formally announced on 1 December." Worth adding a bit more detail on how the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was integrated into the KSCS.

• "Sonnino unsuccessfully tried, on Radić's behalf, to obtain support [...]" This sentence could do with rearranging a bit.
• "son of Josip, a former leader of the Party of Rights" Cut this bit, as it reads quite odd to someone not familiar with the history. Josip's relation to Ivo is already covered in the explanatory footnote. This would then read more cleanly as "Finzi also contacted Ivo Frank, who requested Italian assistance [...]"
• "as well as a number of the faction of the Party of Rights known as the Frankists" Comma should go after this.
• "Frankists were excluded from participation [...]" This section could be broken up into two: one on exclusion, another on the arrest.
• "advocating independent Croatia" -> "advocating for an independent Croatia"?
• Worth adding an interlanguage link to Josip Pazman [sh]

• "moved to" This might not fully communicate the context; "went into exile in" might be more fitting?
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
• "Some sources indicate [...]"; "Others indicate [...]" Which sources? Be specific.
• "obtain independence" -> "obtain the independence"
• "For this purpose, [...]" This sentence could do with a rewrite, as it's a bit confusingly written.

• Link to Fasci Italiani di Combattimento instead of Italian fascism.
• Spotcheck: [20] Verified.
• "Main Dalmatian cities" Huh?
• "Some sources claim" Which sources?
• Spotcheck: [23] Verified.
• "Albanian anti-Yugoslav forces" Do we know which forces these were? Cited source just says "Albanian leaders opposed to Yugoslavia"
  • Likely someone from Kachak Movement, but the source does not say except that they are Albanian and anti-Yugoslav. This excludes Zog's forces, but little else.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "The latter also received Italian aid in opposition [...]" This sentence might be overcontextualising, although it does paint quite the picture of how much Italian intervention against Yugoslavia was happening. Might be worth trimming a bit.

• Spotcheck: [26] Verified.
• "as the organisation's chief recruiter" Think this might be overkill, as you're already introducing him here as the recruiter of prisoners of war.
• "claiming it was 300,000 members" The discrepancy in numbers might be an interesting hook for a did you know feature.

• Spotcheck: [28] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
• "historians and politicians" We're already introducing them as Frankists, so this could be trimmed for concision.
• Spotcheck: [30] Verified.

• "While the Croatian Committee [...]" Woah, this is a really long and meandering sentence. It needs breaking up for readability.
• "to avenge the defeat of 1918" What defeat of 1918? This is completely unclear.
• It's interesting to me that Newman describes the Committee as part of a "Croat counter-revolution". Is this something that could be elaborated on?
• "Frank endorsed Ustaše" -> "Frank endorsed the Ustaše"
  • There's other instances of simply using "Ustaše" where it should say "the Ustaše".
• Why did Frank distance himself from the Ustaše?
• "The group disagreed with Frank on some issues" What issues?
• "The armed groups sharing the Italian support [...]" This sentence could be trimmed slightly for concision.

• You use the word "émigré" twice in the leading sentence. I think you could cut the first instance, so it would say "The Croatian Committee was a Croatian political organization, formed in the summer of 1919, by émigré Frankist politicians and members of the former Austro-Hungarian Army."
• The founder "disputed" field is confusing without any additional information. Either add the two lists as a footnote to the infobox or cut the field.
• Dates could be added to the headquarters field, to show that they moved between these cities (i.e. that they weren't simultaneous)
• What was the political position of the Committee (i.e. left/right)?
  • Considering proximity to the Ustaše, presumably far-right, but no source says so.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider adding the field country = Croatia or country = Yugoslavia to the infobox.
  • Considering that they hardly operated in Yugoslavia, would that be justified?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Worth briefly mentioning its ties to the Ustaše in the lead.

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:

   There's a few cases where the prose isn't clear or concise enough, and where the grammar is incorrect. Prose issues dealt with.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   There's a few cases of weasel wording, i.e. "some sources" Weasel wording replaced with clear attribution.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All references are well-presented and properly formatted.

   B. 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):

   All information in the article is cited to reliable sources, which are kept inline with the information.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research as far as I can see; all spotchecks verified the information.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Found no clear instances of plagiarism in my spotchecks, and earwig only flags trivial cases such as long-form names.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Seems to cover everything one would want to know about the organisation.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   A couple minor cases of overcontextualisation, although these can be easily trimmed for concision.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Neutral throughout, not taking a stance for or against the organisation.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No reverts in its article history, only minor copyedits since the article was nominated for GA.

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:

   The pictures of Stjepan Sarkotić and Milan Šufflay appear to have incorrect licensing information. The public domain status of these photographs should be checked, and if it can't be verified, they should be removed from the article.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant to the subject, depicting members or associates of the organisation.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article is approaching GA criteria, but it currently does not meet criteria 1 for well-written prose and criteria 6a for image licensing. Once these issues are addressed, it should easily pass GAN. I'll put the review on hold until my comments are addressed; feel free to ping me when you've addressed everything or if you have questions. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to review the article. I will address the issues above shortly and get back to you here. Tomobe03 (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst I believe I have tackled all of the above prose and MOS issues. I'm still working on identifying publication dates for the photos though. I trust I'll have them sorted out or removed shortly. Tomobe03 (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkotić is PD, tags added, Šufflay probably so, but I can't find the publication right now, so I removed that photo for now. Tomobe03 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With that, the article now meets all the GA criteria. Excellent work on this article! I really enjoyed reading and reviewing it. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]