Talk:Croatian Republican Peasant Party (1945)

Notes on copyedit

• "the national liberation movement led and dominated by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (Komunistička partija Jugoslavije, KPJ) and by its branch in Croatia – the Communist Party of Croatia (Komunistička partija Hrvatske, KPH)." 2 issues here: 1) "national liberation movement" can be a loaded term, is there a more neutral one that can be used (for example, Yugoslav resistance)? 2) Is this a Croatian or Yugoslav national liberation movement? The sentence almost seems to imply that KPH "led and dominated" the Yugoslav resistance.
  • Yugoslav resistance. Although it is a bit complicated because while the resistance was without doubt primarily led by the KPJ, the party had two branches established before the war (in 1937 if I remember correctly) in Slovenia and Croatia (as undefined territories, as neither Slovenia nor Croatia were territorially defined or established polities/administrative units etc. established at the time) and the KPS/KPH were put in charge of resistance movements in territories roughly corresponding with what later became people's republic of Slovenia and PR Croatia respecitvely. I agree the NLM may be a loaded term - changed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• "soon came into conflict over policies pursued by the two" needs to be more specific about what caused the conflict
  • Explained by summarising the prose on this matter.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Axis invasion of Yugoslavia" I would try to reduce the detail of this section a bit and add some very basic background on the HSS, such as its founding and basic political orientation. It would be interesting to know if the wartime split was presaged by preexisting tensions or factions in the party. (t · c) buidhe 01:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I have prepared a section containing background information on the HSS from its formation until 1939, but then realised it is about 1000 words long - or about twice the size of the corresponding section(s) of the Croatian Peasant Party article. So I posted the material over there instead and I'll try to summarise it further in this article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree 1,000 words is probably too long, but maybe we could get a couple sentences, something like "The Croatian Peasant Party was founded in XX year by Y and Z. [A sentence about its main ideology and goals]"? (t · c) buidhe 08:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry, thought I'd quickly wrap up another issue elsewhere, something came up in the meantime. I added a couple of passages now (about 200 words).--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• "which maintained its position that the HSS does not need to establish any further formal structure before the war is over" Is that the HSS exec committee position or the KPJ position? (t · c) buidhe 00:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, both. In later stages of the war the exec committee operated as a de facto satellite of the KPH (and the HRSS continued this after the war).--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Maček loyalists are present elsewhere pursuing hostile agenda" I'm not sure what this is trying to mean. Where is "elsewhere"? What is the "hostile agenda"? (t · c) buidhe 01:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • By "elsewhere" I meant in committees not under direct control of KPH/KPJ members. The "hostile agenda" was never exactly specified. I adjusted this sentence and the one referred to above. Could you please have another look at them?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's better. (t · c) buidhe 14:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I just had a look at the copyedits you made and I'm very happy with the improvements. Thank you very much!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• You're welcome! (t · c) buidhe 14:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Croatian Republican Peasant Party (1945)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 23:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Tomobe03, I'll take up the review for this article and present it to in some time. I hope my feedback will be helpful to you and I get to learn something new in the process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Tomobe03, I have completed the review. The article pretty much fulfills the good article criteria, I have still listed some concerns and issues in the comments and assessment sections below. I'm putting the article on hold the time being for them to be addressed. Good work on the article in general, by the way! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Tayi Arajakate thank you for the review. I have addressed most of the remarks below as suggested, and replied on others. Could you take another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    Tomobe03, I checked the changes and the issues have been mostly been addressed so I'm going to promote the article now. I have done some minor copyediting on the article and otherwise left some responses in the comments section which you can take into consideration if you want to. Regardless of that, congratulations on the successful nomination! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "... it played a minor role in the politics of Croatia but developed an extensive grassroots network, advocating national unity and agrarianism." In this line, the "politics of Croatia" is wikilinked to an article about the politics of the modern Croatian state. I would recommend delinking and suggest instead linking "Croatia" to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. It also isn't clear what "national unity" means in this context.
• "... while Italy switched its support back to the Ustaše." This part can sound confusing since it already mentions the Ustaše as Italian backed and doesn't mention that Italian-Yugoslav tensions had eased or that Italy was trying to court the HSS for a potential invasion. Either it should be removed or the context elaborated, I would recommend the former since this isn't directly related to the topic of the article.
• "... the Communist Party of Croatia (KPH) operated as a nominally independent party, but actually functioning as a KPJ branch." This could just be simplified to something like "... operated as a nominally independent branch of the KPJ."
• "While some Partisan fighters resented the acceptance of HSS members into their ranks, the official position of the KPH and its secretary Andrija Hebrang was that the newcomers were welcome and free to keep their political views. Hebrang believed, correctly, that greater involvement of the HSS members would lead to increased participation of Croats in the Partisan struggle." There is a slight inaccuracy in here, the citations doesn't attribute it specifically to Hebrang but to the leadership of the KPH. It also seems to state that partisan fighters were divided where some rejected them and others were very receptive of them. I think this part needs to be expanded a bit including their positions and reasoning. The use of "correctly" doesn't sound encyclopedic either, I would suggest rephrasing the sentence. The section should also mention the regional differences in the induction of party members in the partisan groups and the differences in views on the status of the HSS with respect to the KPH among those who joined the partisans.
  • KPH leadership in 1943 meant pretty much Hebrang alone, but I changed this as requested. (T)
    • Alright, looks good now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• "The HSS members cooperating with the ZAVNOH elected the HSS executive committee among themselves on 12 October 1943—the first day of the second session of the ZAVNOH." The line should specify that it was established in Plaški, Lika.
• I think the article has a bit of an issue where it focuses more on Magovac during the wartime period rather than the party itself.
  • I tend to disagree. In the period when the executive committee was led by Magovac, he was the central figure in the committe while the reamining few remained largely inactive. This only changed at the time of his ouster - only possible due to outside actors (KPH). It is clear from the context of the postwar KPJ evaluation of HRSS leadership (Gaži) that the party leadership other than Magovac was largely inert. Overall, I feel the focus on Magovac is justified and greater coverage of others in the relevant period would be undue per wp:undue. (T)
    • I understand that Magovac was the primary figure within the party during the period and I'm not saying that other leaders should be given more coverage at the expense of his coverage, but rather that the focus should be shifted more towards an overview of the entire party (it being the topic of the article) outside the executive committee, as in the activities of the general membership who aligned with the faction should be expanded upon. That said, I don't think it is that big of an issue so I won't hold the nomination over it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• The section on 1946 Croatian Sabor elections is a single small paragraph, part of it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the election, it could just be added with the previous section and the section renamed to something like "post-war elections".
  • I'm not sure there is the minimum size requirement, but I guess it is simple enough to merge. Not sure if that's any improvement or within the GA criteria. (T)
• "... due to the inactivity of the HRSS in the villages and failure of the Communists." I can't access the citation for this one, so I've a question, failure in what? Maybe this could be made more clearer.
  • There was a missing part of the sentence. Added now. (T)
• "In the wake of the Tito–Stalin split, the KPH attempted to reactivate the HRSS in 1950." How does the split bring about this consideration?
  • The source says it did, but offers no reasoning - likely because the KPH did not bother to clarify its intentions. Since the HRSS was not reactivated any claims regarding reasoning would be pure speculation. (T)
    • Alright. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• The lead can sound quite confusing for someone who hasn't already read the body of the article. It isn't specified until the end of the lead that the HSS faction is the HRSS, further complicated by the fact that the two acronyms are very similar, I would suggest re-wording the lead.
  • Edited accordingly. (T)
• In general, the lead might need reworking. There are a number of other issues, it repeats that the party joined the KPJ/KPH led partisans on two succeeding sentences, some of the material is not verifiable from the body (e.g Hebrang's intent "to widen the split in the HSS") and it should probably mention that the decision to join the partisans was partly influenced by another faction joining the Ustaše, the current composition makes it sound like Maček's and Magovac's are the only two. I would also suggest removing the redlink from the lead.
  • Edited accordingly. Per wp:red, the redlink should not be removed. (T)
    • Alright, the lead reads a lot better now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Since the faction de facto existed since 1941, I would suggest reflecting it in the founded paramater of the infobox by adding 1941 as the year the faction was formed and changing 12 October 1943 to the date the executive was established.

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The comprehension is generally good but some polishing is necessary.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear, concise and understandable.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article is largely compliant with the manual of style.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article is largely verifiable.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has a list of references and in-line citations for all material in the body.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used are largely high quality reliable sources.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No explicit original research found, the lead might need further polishing in this regard.	Neutral
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violation or plagiarism found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is adequately comprehensive.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article largely covers all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	There are potential issues with the article's focus.	Neutral

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
The article appears to be compliant with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No ongoing edit warring or content disputes present.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No copyright issues found.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use and captions are good.	Pass