# Talk:Tito–Stalin split

This article desperately needs sources. I have tried to tidy up the language and grammar without changing the meaning, but sources are needed to back up the factual accuracy of some parts. I came here out of interest and know very little, so attention is needed from somebody more learned I reckon. Jdcooper 15:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This article desperately needs people who know the subject and are not lazy enough to read the sources aboundantly listed at the bottom of the article. This is not some obscure topic. Placing tags over the text just because you are not familiar with the subject, without presenting reasons for a reasonable doubt is hardly helpful. With this approach one may grafitty any featured article. Your copyedit is highly welcome, but to question any content requires minimal knowledge, unless you spot a real nonsense. `'Míkka 18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. It occurs now to me that you wanted to say that the article needs footnotes that link article claims to sources. I don't rememeber the proper tag offhand.  `'Míkka 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Added. `'Míkka 18:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't questioning any content, merely requesting that the sources used to write the article be integrated more into the text itself, as you say, linking article claims to sources. Apologies for using the wrong terminology. Jdcooper 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Yugoslavia liberated itself from Axis domination, without any direct support from the Red Army as the others." - what utter nonsense is this? Could someone with at least a basic grounding in the late history of the war rewrite this part?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.21.10 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 

This is true. Yugoslavia did liberate itself, unlike other countries in occupied Europe. The Red Army provided indirect logistical support to the Yugoslav Partisans, but only when it reached Yugoslavia. It did however, render assistance to Tito's forces in the attack on Belgrade, but the entry into the city was conducted jointly. Perhaps a small rewrite is in order. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yugoslavia did not liberate itself. The entire Soviet Third Ukrainian Front (of which 57th Army took major part in the offensive operations against German forces in Serbia) and the entire Bulgarian Army with more than 550 000 men, both fully supported by armored units and aviation, pushed the Germans out of Yugoslavia. There's no denial of the importance and strenght of Tito's partisans, but when it comes to the actual destruction/retreat of the Wehrmacht units in Yugoslavia, this was a result of the advancing Soviet Armies. Wikipedia is supposed to present knowledge based on facts, not feed national mythos.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.69.123 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 

"joint-stock companies favored in the Soviet Union"
Can any of the authors name one? Because here it says: "Due to specifics of the Soviet economy, all enterprises in the Soviet republic as the rest of the Soviet Union were state owned and private entrepreneurship was strictly prohibited and criminally prosecuted", and as far as I know it's true.
So, what were these Soviet joint-stock companies that have led to the split between Tito and Stalin? The subject has to be cleared.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.114.36 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tito–Stalin split/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 19:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I shall attempt to review this article. This is my first time reviewing a GAN, so please let me know if something I'm doing doesn't look right. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review. I have also posted a copyediting request at WP:GOCE/REQ - hopefully there'll be some input from the Guild on the prose quality by the time the review is completed. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I did a first read through the article along with a bit of copyediting. It's a very interesting and thorough article - good work. I'll give you a formal assessment in a day or two, but my initial suggestion would be to break up some of the longer sentences. Some of them are a bit confusing because of their length - for instance the first sentence of the "Background" section and the one beginning "Tito called for action against". Breaking each of them up into two or three shorter sentences would greatly improve the readability of the prose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree completely. Did this one, will go through the entire prose later tonight or tomorrow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Update: I have now read the prose once again, copyediting it to clarify where I saw room for improvement. I should probably have another go at the task, but I suspect it would be wiser to do this tomorrow when I'm fresh(er). Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

My preliminary observations are as follows:

The article passes GA criteria 1b and 2 through 6. (I will provide additional comments on these criteria "for the record" at a later time.)
The article is close to passing 1a, but parts of the prose could still be somewhat clearer. Specifically:
World War II section:
The sentence beginning "Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy" is a bit confusing and should probably be broken up. You might consider taking out the names of the occupation zones - I'm not sure what they add. A "see also" link to an article like World War II in Yugoslavia might also be helpful.
What is a "Communist centre"?
The sentences beginning "Further conflict developed in June 1941" and "There were already remnants" are a bit confusing. Rewording them would probably be sufficient, although breaking them up wouldn't be bad, either.
Break up the sentence beginning "In October 1941".
You use both the English "Peter II" and the Serbo-Croatian "Petar II." Choose one or the other.
Political situation section: Break up the sentence beginning "The contrast with the rest of Eastern Europe".
Yugoslav foreign policy section:
I'd reword the sentence that begins "The relations were complicated".
Could you move the sentence beginning "The militaries of the two countries also cooperated" to be before the "Even though the USSR" sentence? As it stands, it isn't clear which two countries you're talking about.
Integration with Albania section: Break up the second sentence (Tito saw...) and the sentence beginning "Many DAG fighters were Macedonian Slavs".
February 1948 meeting section: It might be worth breaking up the sentence beginning "Specifically, the USSR viewed" - it's a bit unwieldy.
First letter section: I suggest rewording and/or breaking up the sentence that begins "Stalin also criticised".
US aid section:
What do you mean by "to justify the effort"?
Sentence starting with "Even though the Yugoslavs": reword or break up.
Soviet actions section: Break up the sentence beginning "It was headed by Colonel General".
Again, this is a fascinating and well-researched article, and it's very close to meeting the GA criteria. Once the prose is tightened up, it'll be good to go. (Hopefully you'll get a copyedit from GOCE soon - that would probably be helpful.) Let me know if any of my suggestions are unclear. Thanks for your work on this article — I look forward to passing it to GA status very soon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the specific problems with the prose. I tried to address them. The "to justify the effort" bit was a bit of stray text, that I have removed now. Unfortunately, there is no way to speed up GOCE response in any way, but I'm looking forward to their input whenever it may come since I would like to improve the article further to meet A-class criteria as well. I will re-read the changes I just made later in the afternoon and see if I can improve the prose any further. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
You're making great progress. Here are just a few more suggestions:
The sentence that begins "At the same time, it was tacitly approving" - it isn't really clear how restructuring the BRP relates to Bulgarian annexation. Perhaps it could be clarified?
I would consider eliminating the somewhat unwieldy sentence that begins "There were claims against Hungary" and instead adding that to your earlier sentence, e.g. "its territorial claims against most of its neighbours, including Hungary, Austria, and Italy." The reader can go to the article you linked on Yugoslav irredentism if more information is desired.
It might be helpful to explain briefly what the Cominform is.
The article contains a lot of acronyms, and it's easy for a casual reader to forget what they mean. I suppose this is to some extent inevitable, so don't worry too much about it, but you might consider, for instance, spelling out "Bulgarian Workers Party" each of the three times it appears. The reader can probably remember USSR, KPJ, PKSH, and DAG, but anything more than that will probably be forgotten. Again, don't spend too much time on it, but it's something to think about.
You're almost there! Give the article another thorough read-through, and the prose should more-or-less satisfactory. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
My final comments are below. As I indicated above, this is my first GA review, so I would appreciate knowing whether my review has been roughly comparable to the other ones you've experienced. If I can be of any further assistance to you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thank you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I conclude that this article meets the GA criteria, and I will therefore list it as a good article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
The prose isn't FA-quality, but that's not the standard. The standard is that the prose be "clear and not confusing." See WP:GACN. On balance, I am satisfied that a reader will be able to understand what the article is saying with minimal difficulty, and that is enough to fulfill the criterion.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
The lead adequately summarizes the article, and the layout conforms to policy. The words listed at MOS:WTW have been avoided. The MOS sections on fiction and list incorporation do not apply.
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: 
The article is thoroughly cited, and all sources are reliable. The sources that were available online scrupulously support the statements for which they are cited. I will presume that the same is true of the offline sources.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
A run through Earwig's copyvio detector revealed no problems whatsoever.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
The topic is covered in a detailed and comprehensive manner. Sufficient background is provided, and the significance and impact of the event are clearly explained.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

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

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All pictures are free-use.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Your hard work on this article is greatly appreciated.
Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking time to review this article. Your review was quite similar to earlier GARs I experienced in terms of attention to detail and its overall course. I found your feedback very helpful and I believe thath quality of the article, especially its prose, has benefited from the process. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This article contains the (widely rebutted) claim that Jasenovac and its sub-camps were used extensively by the communists to intern political opponents, a claim often made by modern revisionists. [2] [3] A three-decade-old source published while Yugoslavia was still a country isn't sufficient for this extraordinary assertion to stay in this GA-level article. Hence, if no one has any objections, I will remove it. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The use of Bosnia and Croatia to describe areas of Yugoslavia that were included in the NDH is not only incorrect (as Bosnia is an ill-defined region, and Croatia is a link to the current nation, which didn’t exist at the time, and its use is therefore ahistorical), but Herzegovina is entirely left out. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with PM here. Mentioning the two toponyms adds nothing to understanding of the topic and might confuse for the following reasons: (1) as stated, Bosnia is not well defined (even though I believe all definitions would be encompassed by the NDH territory); (2) Croatia, even used as a geographic term of description, makes little sense even if "present-day" qualification is added because significant parts of present-day Croatia were not included in the NDH (in 1941, those would account for about 12 thousand km2 or thereabout, i.e. well north of 20% of the present-day Croatian territory -- even if the NDH territory is accounted as including the parts only nominally ruled from Zagreb); (3) even if treated as a shorthand description, it omits Herzegovina and Syrmia. I believe the PM's revert is fully justified.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Both of you are correct, Tomobe summs it up perfectly. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)