Podgorica Assembly has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 6, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The mention of a Greater Serbia is completly irrelevant to the Assembly - and incorrect - so is the POV-ised portraying of the Serbian government. Thus, I am placing a totallydisputed tag.
Moreover, the ridiculous mention of a Montenegrin Autocephalous Orthodox Church (cca 1920s) is unconnected - and it implies that it originates from the 650s... Very interesting for Slavic pagans... The Autocephalous branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Montenegro was founded in the late 18th century, recognized (partially!) and formed throughout the 19th century as well as constitutionalized at the beginning of the 20th century. However, it was reunited with other Serb branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1920 - just as it was its sole goal... Anyway, this is totally irrelevant with the actual assembly. -- HolyRomanEmperor 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article is biased, but what about the previous one? There was no mention of Montenegrin's resistance to unification, and no mention whatsoever of general Montenegrin's malcontent with way the things were done.
This is no perfect article, and I intend to work on it, but the notion of cute little unification which occured to everyone's approval just bothered me. It is widely accepted that Podgorica Assembly was no legitimate nor it was legal. It did not represent the will of the Montenegrin people. I'm aware this one is too inclined the other way for an encyclopedia, but it's yet to improve... Nije bitno... 20:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A lot of sloppy additions to the article. The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are not the same, and the author got them mixed up. Also, Alexander I of Yugoslavia wan't the king in 1918, his father was.-- Methodius 00:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
And the Kingdom of Yugoslavia only existed under that name from 1929.-- Methodius 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could find a better source than montenegrina.net eventually, since it's hardly the most unbiased site.-- Methodius 01:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but Montenegrina.net and Njegos.org put together sort of balance each other out, don't ya think? :) Sideshow Bob 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Tomobe03 ( talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: ThaesOfereode ( talk · contribs) 21:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @
Tomobe03: Great article you have here! I have a couple notes to get this to GA, but these should be relatively straightforward fixes (if a little numerous).
ThaesOfereode (
talk)
21:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Mostly good. See comments at the bottom. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Mostly good. See below. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Good. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Sfn template is well-applied, but some issues came up. Source spot check found below. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Good here. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no significant issues. Spot check shows the same. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Clearly addresses the topic at hand. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Adds appropriate context where necessary. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Easily passed. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Stable. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Maps and all but one image are in the public domain. Other image has an appropriate license. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | I'd love to know who's sitting around the table in the "Formal surrender of Montenegro to Austro-Hungarian forces in 1916" image. But I suspect that information is probably not readily available. The images are helpful and well-marked. My only quibble is that you might alternate left and right positioning for a little more variance. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Good shape for most stuff. See prose issues below. |
There are some prose issues that need to be addressed:
This section needs to be rewritten to be more transparent about modern vs historical discourse. If this is an on-going debate between unionists and independentists within Montenegro, that needs to be made clear. If this is only a historical debate, that needs to be made clear and the sentences need to be in the past tense.
This decision led to accusations against Montenegrin communist leader Milovan Djilas, alleging that he "invented the Montenegrin nation," and resulted in a series of censuses where the majority (though not all) of the population of Montenegro declared themselves as Montenegrins. – This sentence is really confusing for me. Why was Djilas blamed? Why did the decision lead to the census declarations? Why did either lead to an invention of the Montenegrin nation?
I have applied changes needed to address the prose and MOS issues above. Could you please have a look at the changes?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
As regards significant independists opposing any union at the time of the assembly, the sources do not seem to offer any, explicitly saying they favoured a conditional union instead. I'd be happy to include mention of such names, but I found none. There may be something I'm missing though.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
As regards the present vs historical debate, the source speaks of it in past tense, so I adjusted the prose accordingly and added clarification to point out that it concerns a historical discourse. Modern issues are addressed in the "Annulment" section anyway.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
You are correct. Fuller does not support the claim, but Pavlović does and I have added that reference now.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Podgorica Assembly has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 6, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The mention of a Greater Serbia is completly irrelevant to the Assembly - and incorrect - so is the POV-ised portraying of the Serbian government. Thus, I am placing a totallydisputed tag.
Moreover, the ridiculous mention of a Montenegrin Autocephalous Orthodox Church (cca 1920s) is unconnected - and it implies that it originates from the 650s... Very interesting for Slavic pagans... The Autocephalous branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Montenegro was founded in the late 18th century, recognized (partially!) and formed throughout the 19th century as well as constitutionalized at the beginning of the 20th century. However, it was reunited with other Serb branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1920 - just as it was its sole goal... Anyway, this is totally irrelevant with the actual assembly. -- HolyRomanEmperor 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article is biased, but what about the previous one? There was no mention of Montenegrin's resistance to unification, and no mention whatsoever of general Montenegrin's malcontent with way the things were done.
This is no perfect article, and I intend to work on it, but the notion of cute little unification which occured to everyone's approval just bothered me. It is widely accepted that Podgorica Assembly was no legitimate nor it was legal. It did not represent the will of the Montenegrin people. I'm aware this one is too inclined the other way for an encyclopedia, but it's yet to improve... Nije bitno... 20:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A lot of sloppy additions to the article. The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are not the same, and the author got them mixed up. Also, Alexander I of Yugoslavia wan't the king in 1918, his father was.-- Methodius 00:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
And the Kingdom of Yugoslavia only existed under that name from 1929.-- Methodius 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could find a better source than montenegrina.net eventually, since it's hardly the most unbiased site.-- Methodius 01:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but Montenegrina.net and Njegos.org put together sort of balance each other out, don't ya think? :) Sideshow Bob 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Tomobe03 ( talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: ThaesOfereode ( talk · contribs) 21:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @
Tomobe03: Great article you have here! I have a couple notes to get this to GA, but these should be relatively straightforward fixes (if a little numerous).
ThaesOfereode (
talk)
21:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Mostly good. See comments at the bottom. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Mostly good. See below. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Good. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Sfn template is well-applied, but some issues came up. Source spot check found below. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Good here. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no significant issues. Spot check shows the same. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Clearly addresses the topic at hand. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Adds appropriate context where necessary. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Easily passed. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Stable. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Maps and all but one image are in the public domain. Other image has an appropriate license. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | I'd love to know who's sitting around the table in the "Formal surrender of Montenegro to Austro-Hungarian forces in 1916" image. But I suspect that information is probably not readily available. The images are helpful and well-marked. My only quibble is that you might alternate left and right positioning for a little more variance. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Good shape for most stuff. See prose issues below. |
There are some prose issues that need to be addressed:
This section needs to be rewritten to be more transparent about modern vs historical discourse. If this is an on-going debate between unionists and independentists within Montenegro, that needs to be made clear. If this is only a historical debate, that needs to be made clear and the sentences need to be in the past tense.
This decision led to accusations against Montenegrin communist leader Milovan Djilas, alleging that he "invented the Montenegrin nation," and resulted in a series of censuses where the majority (though not all) of the population of Montenegro declared themselves as Montenegrins. – This sentence is really confusing for me. Why was Djilas blamed? Why did the decision lead to the census declarations? Why did either lead to an invention of the Montenegrin nation?
I have applied changes needed to address the prose and MOS issues above. Could you please have a look at the changes?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
As regards significant independists opposing any union at the time of the assembly, the sources do not seem to offer any, explicitly saying they favoured a conditional union instead. I'd be happy to include mention of such names, but I found none. There may be something I'm missing though.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
As regards the present vs historical debate, the source speaks of it in past tense, so I adjusted the prose accordingly and added clarification to point out that it concerns a historical discourse. Modern issues are addressed in the "Annulment" section anyway.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
You are correct. Fuller does not support the claim, but Pavlović does and I have added that reference now.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)