# Talk:Zdenko Blažeković

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)

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)

I've got this one. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 14:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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? 23 editor (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
I've tweaked  said parts according to Tim's translation. 23 editor (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Peacemaker has essentially disappeared, so I'm going to put this one back in the review queue. Wizardman 02:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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:

What was the "Ustaše Supervisory Committee"? (Hrvatski ustaški nadzorni stožer) I admit I don't know, but it hardly seems relevant since it existed for less than a month (according to our article, from 11 April to 9 May).
What was the "Ustaše University Centre"? (Sveučilišni ustaški stožer) ("Stožer" is usually translated as "headquarters" or "command centre", while "Ustaše" saw themselves as a political party. So this seems to have been their student branch active in universities.) But our article does not say this, it just offers a translated organisation title which sounds as if Ustaše had built a research centre or something.
What is the "Main headquarters of the NDH"? (Glavni ustaški stan) (This was the supreme governing body of the Ustaše (the party) - not NDH (the country) - but again, our article does not explain that).
The "13th Ustaše Assault Corps" is in fact "13. ustaška jurišna satnija" - "satnija" is led by a "satnik", which is the equivalent of a captain, which means it seems it was a company rather than a corps-sized unit. The difference is pretty huge. Also, what the heck was the 13th Ustaše Assault Company, a reader might ask? (it was a unit composed of students recruited by Blažeković at Zagreb University - but the article does not say that)
The source says Blažeković "participated in recruiting many students in 1942 and 1943 for the Poglavnikov Tjelesni Zdrug (PTZ)". This article says he joined the PTZ (which he maybe did or didn't). The PTS was btw a regiment (and later a division) sized unit which reported to Pavelić directly, comparable in function and size to the 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler.
The article says Blažeković wrote a book titled "The Youth and the Nation". The source says it was titled "Mladež i država" (The Youth and the State). However - do we know anything more about this book? Because if we don't, how do we know this piece of information is even relevant for inclusion?
The lede mentioned in the very first sentence that he was an ethnic Croat - something the source does not really claim. Of course, while it is generally accepted that a nationalist organisation such as Ustaše must have been composed of Croats, that does not need to be true (the Ustaše loathed some ethnic groups but were pretty indifferent towards some others), and the source does not mention his ethnicity at all (this and religion are btw wider issues on Wikipedia's articles on Ustaše officials, as somebody decided on their own that all Ustaše were a) Croats and b) Roman Catholics.) Besides, his ethnicity is not really relevant for his notability - the fact the source lexicon does not mention it means that they either take it for granted or consider it irrelevant as well.
I also have issues with listing this guy in the Category:Croatian collaborators with Nazi Germany and Category:Croatian collaborators with Fascist Italy. For one, all members of Ustaše are already included in that category so there's no need to include each Ustaša article separately. Secondly, we have no evidence this guy ever even met a German or Italian person in his life. The fact that he was part of a regime which was allied with country X does not mean that every person in that country's state apparatus was a collaborator with X. Otherwise we could also describe him (and every other Ustaša) as a collaborator with Slovakia, Bulgaria, Imperial Japan, and Vichy France as well. This implies guilt by association (also an issue stemming from overzealous editors working on Ustaše articles).
My 2 cents, do as you please. Timbouctou (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)
Nominator: 23 editor (talk)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

2: Verifiable with no original research

a. Has an appropriate reference section:  Yes
b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

c. No original research:   Done

3: Broad in its coverage

4: Neutral

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)