# Talk:Jadranska straža

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jadranska straža/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 00:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 00:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I will be reviewing the article. I need some time to go through the references.A.Cython (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
{{subst:#if:|{{{overcom}}}|}}
Overall, it is a well-written article. A couple of minor issues need to be ironed out before GA status.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The prose overall is good. I noticed a couple of minor things:
 "generated through the sale sale of the association's publications [...]"
add "the" in front of the word "challenging" at "...and challenging terrain..."
[optional] I noticed that you used (consistently) the English spelling rather than American; you need to add a notice {{Oxford spelling}} on the talk page, see more in Template:Use Oxford spelling. There is nothing wrong with Oxford English, but most articles in WP use/expect American English by default, so it is good to clarify.
The layout of the article felt a little off-balance to me. The "Publishing activity" should be right after the section where you describe the organization's structure. The section "Relationship with the state" reads as the history of the organization, including its demise, which is a natural way to end the article. Going back and talking about the organization's function after its demise seems backward (in reading flow).
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Overall, the citations look good, no original research, and there are no copyright issues that I could spot.
 See neutrality.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It is focused on its subject.
 I feel that it misses the chance to connect the dots on a broader picture. Specifically, I find two issues missing.
The Interwar period was turbulent for many countries worldwide. Several countries in the Balkans had similar phases. For example,
Greece had the Metaxa's fascist-based dictatorship (1936-1941) that brought back the king after the shortlived attempt to establish a republic (1924-1936) by Eleftherios Venizelos.
Bulgaria also had several coups in 1923 & 1934.
A brief summary of the rise of the movement in a broader context (no need to use the above specific examples) would help the reader understand that this organization was not an isolated case. Note that the "interwar period" wiki-link is found at the middle/end of the article, while I would have expected it somewhere in the beginning, e.g., the "background" section.
Another aspect that one would expect is its (if any) influence today. Is there any nostalgia in modern-day (right-wing) politics that invokes the ideology of this organization? This could be a brief "Aftermath" section at the end. I know you mentioned an attempt to revive the particular organization right after WWII, but given the rise of right-wing populism in Europe lately, I am curious if there are any new links.
The figure showing the zones of influence has more than Italy, such as Americans, British, and French. There is no mention in the main text regarding the organization's attitude toward them. I understand that the primary antagonism was with Italy, but any brief statements regarding the others would help the main text. Otherwise, it feels as if something is missing.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Appears neutral.
 I noticed that the majority of the citations are based on two references of the same author: Tchoukarine (16 out of 37). I encourage you to, if possible, add citations, even if already cited by Tchoukarine, from other (existing) sources/authors. Otherwise, it may cause issues of neutrality since the article would reflect the work of a single scholar. This issue is of concern if you seek to improve the article towards FA status. Any effort in this direction would be good enough for me.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Appears stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images seem ok.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
{{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}
Thank you for taking time to review the article. I intend to respond, hopefully address your concerns shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Regarding an additional source to complement Tchoukarine. I have located and added Karaula (2022) which quite corresponds to Tchoukarine. I have duplicated some of the present refrences and I'll duplicate the rest of Tchoukarine, even though most of them seem quite non-contentious, over a day or two.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe this issue is addressed now. Please have a look at the changes. Tomobe03 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the publishing activity section: I could either move the section up, for example following the information on establishment, but then there would be information on late publications presented before some of the timeline of the relationship with the state, i.e. out of chronological order. Othewise I could completely rewrite, or at leaste break up the information on the publishing activity and move individual pieces to relevant chronologica points, but I feel it would do no favour to readers, making both organisation timeline and its publishing activities more difficult to follow. While I find the present layout in this regard chronologically clear and unambigous by subtopic, I'm open to suggestions on the way to improve it. Would you prefer breaking up the section or moving it as a whole or something else?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Reading the section once again, I still find it the most logical way of presenting the info on the subtopic (publishing) because it carries information belonging to and changing during various periods of the organisation's existence. I'm afraid readers looking for information on the organisation's publications would struggle to gain a complete picture if it were broken up and added to appropriate places in the timeline for little gain. I agree that one might find it odd to read about winding up of the organisation and then skip to the section on its journals, but I don't think that could be a realistic obstacle to understanding the article topic. I could not think of another way to tackle this issue. Tomobe03 (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the wider context: There already is some context in the article, as the organisation was primarily created and motivated by the real or perceived threat of Italian irredentism in a given context of the state considered the best protection against the threat. In that respect, I'll check if there are other contemporary organisations motivated by Italian or other irredentism that could be pointed out for context. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have tried to address this issue by adding information at appropriate parts of the prose regarding other organisation in Yugoslavia they cooperated with, noting the Navy League (Germany) as a role model, and noting that the organisation was a typical interwar period European organisation tapping into militarism and patriotism. The significance of Italian irredentism (and reaction to the same) was already noted in the text. Could you please review the additions? Tomobe03 (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the aftermath material: Interesting point. There may be a relevant aspect that could be plausibly linked, and I'll add that shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have added a brief section on the subsequent development of the Adriatic orientation as the organisation's legacy - after all it is the organisation's "invention". Could you please have a look at it? Tomobe03 (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the lack of information on the British/US/French zone, I have now added the minimum needed to establish that the local population felt only Italian troops were a threat. Please have a look at the changes to see if that's ok now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the spelling template: Please note that there is the {{EngvarB}} template already included in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for improving the article so quickly. No, need to move the "publishing activity" section. I see your argument, and with the new improvements, there is less need to be moved. Please give me a few days to re-read the improved version and new references more carefully. A.Cython (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Much improved. Well done! A.Cython (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)