# Talk:Zagreb Resolution

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zagreb Resolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 16:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I will be taking a look at this! — GhostRiver 16:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


### Lede
"as continuation of" → "as a continuation of"
"the conference held in Zagreb on 2–3 March" → "the Zagreb conference that March."


### Background
Missing closing en dash after "and the Muslim Slavs (Bosniaks)"
There's a lot going on in this clause and I'm wondering if there would be some way to split it: objections of Croat political leaders to division of the proposed Triune Kingdom to Croatia-Slavonia and the Kingdom of Dalmatia assigned to the Hungarian-dominated Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen and Cisleithania respectively.
"the Russia sued for peace"
"May of 1917" → "May 1917" per MOS:BADDATE
Comma after "in the Austrian Imperial Council"


### Zagreb conference
"There were 43 people attending the conference," → "The conference boasted 43 attendees"
"Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is unified" → "Slovenes, Croats and Serbs are unified"
No comma needed after "The first point of the resolution"
"and was used in the Niš Declaration."
"historcally" → "historically"


### Aftermath
17 August the Slovene National Council (Narodni svet) in Ljubljana on 17 August. muddled syntax
"The main challenges for the preparatory committee was to obtain cooperation of the HSK which refused to cooperate, convince that the project was directed against the HSK." → "The main challenge for the preparatory committee was to obtain cooperation from the HSK, who were convinced that the project was directed against them."
"declared severing" → "declared the severance"
"and joining of the State" → "and joined the State"


### References
Good


### General comments
Map and photos are properly licensed and relevant
No stability concerns in the revision history
Earwig score looks good at 9.1%
All minor prose things. Putting on hold for now, and feel free to ping me with questions! — GhostRiver 17:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to review this nomination. I have reviewed and implemented your suggestions. I have also edited the sentence containing repeated date (on establishment of the Narodni svet) and broken up the confusingly long sentence in the Background section you pointed out. Could you please have another look at those edits? Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything looks good now; happy to pass! — GhostRiver 16:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The article cites "Matijević 2008", but such sources cannot be fined in the bibliography. --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguating suffix was missing in a cite parameter. Good catch, thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)