![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Assessment the article fails at least B3 criterion.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 00:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Joint Council of Municipalities Collage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Folklorna manifestacija ZVO-a.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
Could anyone explain please how can an article covering an organisation (JCM in this case) justify (sub)sections such as: demographics, geography, economy, Serbs in the rest of the two counties, notable natives and residents and others like that? No organisation has "geography" or "demographics" issues related let alone "natives and residents". This is an organisation and the article itself says so in the lead, not a geographic region. Even the talk page suffers from huge wikiproject overkill, including ones which clearly do not encompass this type of articles.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is my review of the article... I'm concentrating on scope and layout. The following should be taken as suggestions or advice, nothing more.
Should be expanded a bit per WP:LEAD. Ideally the intro should summarize all major sections of the article. I think it's best done after the article body has been taken care of.
JCM is a consequence of the Erdut Agreement, which is in turn a consequence of the Croatian War of Independence. The war background is a bit lacking so an extra paragraph would be useful there.
I had the impression that the section was slightly too long. It is useful, though, because it illustrates the controversy. If there was controversy outside the 2010 parliamentary debate, it might be covered too.
Okay.
I like the table, but I'm not sure about the prose. Most, if not all of it, belongs in the respective municipality articles. (And it's already there, as far as I can tell.) Ethnic composition should be added to the table (both pre-war and post-war figures, preferably).
Merge with the "Internal structure" section? Seems to overlap, essentially, because the structure is a political one.
No direct relevance to the JCM's raison d'etre, so I'd cut these sections out.
I'd say Culture is the level 2 section, while Education, Media and communications and Sport are level 3 sections. Should be expanded. Sport = Veterans League plus possibly something else if it's there.
Off-topic, unless it describes the relation between the JCM and these counties (which it actually does, at least partially). Some (most?) of it might go to the Culture section.
That's about it. More comments are welcome, of course. The article will remain on my watchlist for a couple of weeks at least. GregorB ( talk) 14:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Joint Council of Municipalities. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not agree with previous edits made by user Beaneater00 as it seems to me that they are strong example of non-neutral POV. Still, in order to avoid edit conflict or misunderstanding I want to ask for some feedback before reverting it. While I do appreciate grammatical interventions and I do not think that the previous version was ideal (in my perception it was itself result of earlier POV from anther now blocked user) there is not much more agreeable content in last two edits by Beaneater00.
1) While I can partially understand earlier edit on 6 December from the point of view of protection of minority languages I do not think it is appropriate in this case. There is discussion in literature how bilingualism (in which majority language is even just physically prioritized) is potentially "dangerous" for sustainability of less dominant minority language (yet I am skeptical how much it was motivation behind this edit). In practice in extreme example it can lead to "minority" monolingualism such as the case in monolingual Quebec as contrasted to bilingual Canada. Still this does not correspond to (Central) European and Croatian reality in which the same Constitutional Act which provide for co-official equal use of minority language (to the point of requesting equal font size) clearly state that minority language text follows (and does not precede) Croatian language text. As ZVO is minority body in Croatia I think this should be adopted here.
2) I have much more problem with the second edit (7 December at 19:30) and I think it should be removed (except for grammatical improvements). It is non-neutral POV, it uses hyperbolas, factually incorrect data (e.g. 30%) and does not use common terms in English (while I would say War in Croatia, many of my Croat colleagues Homeland War, I do think that quite common term in English is Croatian War of Independence which every informed reader will know is part of Yugoslav Wars). I think this kind of edits is not useful for anyone (including the ZVO). I am trying to stay neutral in my editing (while acknowledging my personal commitment to minority rights topics) and to measure equally the Croatian Government positions, minority institutions and international context. Your feedback will help to resolve this situation.-- MirkoS18 ( talk) 22:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Assessment the article fails at least B3 criterion.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 00:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Joint Council of Municipalities Collage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Folklorna manifestacija ZVO-a.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
Could anyone explain please how can an article covering an organisation (JCM in this case) justify (sub)sections such as: demographics, geography, economy, Serbs in the rest of the two counties, notable natives and residents and others like that? No organisation has "geography" or "demographics" issues related let alone "natives and residents". This is an organisation and the article itself says so in the lead, not a geographic region. Even the talk page suffers from huge wikiproject overkill, including ones which clearly do not encompass this type of articles.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is my review of the article... I'm concentrating on scope and layout. The following should be taken as suggestions or advice, nothing more.
Should be expanded a bit per WP:LEAD. Ideally the intro should summarize all major sections of the article. I think it's best done after the article body has been taken care of.
JCM is a consequence of the Erdut Agreement, which is in turn a consequence of the Croatian War of Independence. The war background is a bit lacking so an extra paragraph would be useful there.
I had the impression that the section was slightly too long. It is useful, though, because it illustrates the controversy. If there was controversy outside the 2010 parliamentary debate, it might be covered too.
Okay.
I like the table, but I'm not sure about the prose. Most, if not all of it, belongs in the respective municipality articles. (And it's already there, as far as I can tell.) Ethnic composition should be added to the table (both pre-war and post-war figures, preferably).
Merge with the "Internal structure" section? Seems to overlap, essentially, because the structure is a political one.
No direct relevance to the JCM's raison d'etre, so I'd cut these sections out.
I'd say Culture is the level 2 section, while Education, Media and communications and Sport are level 3 sections. Should be expanded. Sport = Veterans League plus possibly something else if it's there.
Off-topic, unless it describes the relation between the JCM and these counties (which it actually does, at least partially). Some (most?) of it might go to the Culture section.
That's about it. More comments are welcome, of course. The article will remain on my watchlist for a couple of weeks at least. GregorB ( talk) 14:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Joint Council of Municipalities. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not agree with previous edits made by user Beaneater00 as it seems to me that they are strong example of non-neutral POV. Still, in order to avoid edit conflict or misunderstanding I want to ask for some feedback before reverting it. While I do appreciate grammatical interventions and I do not think that the previous version was ideal (in my perception it was itself result of earlier POV from anther now blocked user) there is not much more agreeable content in last two edits by Beaneater00.
1) While I can partially understand earlier edit on 6 December from the point of view of protection of minority languages I do not think it is appropriate in this case. There is discussion in literature how bilingualism (in which majority language is even just physically prioritized) is potentially "dangerous" for sustainability of less dominant minority language (yet I am skeptical how much it was motivation behind this edit). In practice in extreme example it can lead to "minority" monolingualism such as the case in monolingual Quebec as contrasted to bilingual Canada. Still this does not correspond to (Central) European and Croatian reality in which the same Constitutional Act which provide for co-official equal use of minority language (to the point of requesting equal font size) clearly state that minority language text follows (and does not precede) Croatian language text. As ZVO is minority body in Croatia I think this should be adopted here.
2) I have much more problem with the second edit (7 December at 19:30) and I think it should be removed (except for grammatical improvements). It is non-neutral POV, it uses hyperbolas, factually incorrect data (e.g. 30%) and does not use common terms in English (while I would say War in Croatia, many of my Croat colleagues Homeland War, I do think that quite common term in English is Croatian War of Independence which every informed reader will know is part of Yugoslav Wars). I think this kind of edits is not useful for anyone (including the ZVO). I am trying to stay neutral in my editing (while acknowledging my personal commitment to minority rights topics) and to measure equally the Croatian Government positions, minority institutions and international context. Your feedback will help to resolve this situation.-- MirkoS18 ( talk) 22:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)