Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Pavle Đurišić

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pavle Đurišić edit

Nominator(s): ◅PRODUCER (TALK) and Peacemaker67 (talk)


Peacemaker67 and I are nominating this article for review because we believe it meets the criteria for A-class status. ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 08:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images: File:Pavle Durisic.jpg lacks source information and I request you fill out the FUR somewhat mroe thoroughly: why isn't it replaceable, etc. ?
File:Pavle Đurišić Iron Cross.jpg has a bizarre life+100 tag for an image created in 1944. What is the rationale behind that?
All other files lack a valid US copyright tag, which is a requirement.
Oppose on those grounds. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will address these concerns. Give me another day. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response. I've expanded the FUR as requested and added what I believe to be the appropriate US licenses after doing a bit of research on the matter. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the article and have the following comments to make:
Style Generally, OK but I did make changes throughout. Please review these to make sure I haven't changed any meanings - the most significant change was to the second paragraph of the "Italian Occupation of Montenegro 1941-1943" section.
I reviewed your changes and they look fine to me. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References - I can't spot check the references as I don't have any of the rather specialised books on this subject, but applying good faith, article looks well referenced. Each paragraph has at least one inline citation, with some having several. The main sources are books and the remaining appear to be news websites.
The majority of the references are available on Google books and can be checked when in doubt. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Content - I am not at all familiar with the subject matter, but as a non-specialist, my major concern with the article is that there is no information about Đurišić prior to 1941, schooling, profession, position etc... The article really needs an "Early life" section to lead into the "World War II" section. The article mentions he was a captain, but in what? It is only with very careful reading that it becomes apparent that he was in the Yugoslav army - this needs to be improved. There is also no context for Draža Mihailović - what was his authority for making Đurišić commander of forces in Montenegro?
I've found a source detailing his early life and expanded that section accordingly. I'll add a bit of context for Mihailović. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "early life" section looks good and makes the article much more complete IMO. I've done a bit of a tweak of the text but some the links in the next section (WWII) needs to be moved into the "early life" section, e.g. Italy/Albania. However, it is still not clear which army he joined in 1927. Ideally, the second paragraph would read something like "...commissioned as an infantry lieutenant in the X army...". A link to the specific army should be in the infobox as well. On reviewing the article again, another area I think may need some improvement is the "Commemoration controversy". It seems like it needs a sentence or two about Đurišić's legacy in Berane - presumably he was well thought of, which would explain why a monument was proposed in the first place. Otherwise it seems odd to celebrate his memory given his conduct against the Muslim population. Zawed (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early life: Clarified it was the Royal Yugoslav Army and added that allegiance to the infobox. Don't know how that slipped my mind.
Commemoration controversy: Added that the town was where he founded his headquarters and that residents consider it the "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" hence the name. That its "odd" is something that any rational outsider would conclude, but this is in the Balkans and such praise of mad men is not uncommon. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just did another passover of the article, just needs clarification of who Mihailović was, as per my earlier comments, and then I will be happy to support. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 has already modified the sentence about Djurisic's promotion slightly. Legally Mihailovic didn't have any authority, but then again he wasn't bound to as this was done solely on his initiative. The Chetniks were only recognized by the royal Yugoslav government in exile as the new army in January 1942. To be honest I think the previous sentence was fine as no source questions whether or not Djurisic was promoted by him. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 13:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs context for Mihailovic and his position within the Chetniks. How about replacing the first sentence of the "Italian Occupation of Montenegro 1941–1943" section with: "In October 1941, Draža Mihailović, a prominent Chetnik leader supported by the Yugoslav government-in-exile, appointed Đurišić as the commander of all regular and reserve troops in central and eastern Montenegro and parts of the Sandžak." There is no need to mention the trial itself, which has no relevance to this article. And reviewing this article again, I think the WWII section needs a sentence just explaining what the Chetniks were. It could be as simple as amending the sentence "The uprising also included large numbers of nationalists..." to read "The uprising also included large numbers of nationalists, who would organise themselves into the Chetniks,..." Your thoughts? Zawed (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added your suggestions. I noted that Mihailovic was "later supported" per above. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage, I oppose due to my concerns with content. Happy to look at this again once the nominator responds. Zawed (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as concerns now addressed. Zawed (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • See WP:MOS#Quotation marks; use double rather than single quotes.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments: Good work so far, but I think it needs a little more work to make it to A-class. These are my comments/suggestions:
    • wikilinks: I suggest adding links for "platoon" and "company" on first mention to help non-specialist readers understand these units/formations;
    • inconsistent English variation: "organized" and "organise";
    • this sounded a little awkward to me: "killed about 1,200 Muslim fighters and about 8,000 old people, women, and children, and destroyed all property except for livestock, grain and hay, which they seized". Perhaps replace "old people" with "elderly people" and change the order of the list, for example: "about 8,000 women, children and elderly people, and destroyed all property that they had seized except for livestock, grain and hay";
    • inconsistent use of double or single quotation marks. E.g. you use single here: northern Montenegro and was described as 'a law unto himself'; but you use double here: for "cleansing the Muslim population from Sandžak and the Muslim and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina" amongst. As Dank says above, the MOS asks for double;
    • "Đurišić and his local Chetniks were also impatient to turn on the Muslims and Albanians in the region". Could some explanation of this be added? Why were they wanting to turn on them? It probably only needs a small clause or sentence to explain this;
      • Appended "due to their animosity towards them" to the sentence. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 08:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • capitalisation: per WP:Section caps the capitalisation in the section headers is incorrect in a number of instances (i.e where it isn't a proper noun only the first letter of the first world in the header should be capitalised). For example, "Capture and Release" should be "Capture and release";
    • I found this a little awkward: "On 10 January 1943, Đurišić reported that Chetniks under his command had burned down 33 Muslim villages, killed 400 members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported by the Italians, and had also killed about 1,000 Muslim women and children". Perhaps reword to: "On 10 January 1943, Đurišić reported that supported by the Italians, Chetniks under his command had burned down 33 Muslim villages, killed 400 members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported, and had also killed about 1,000 Muslim women and children";
      • The Muslim militia was supported by the Italians. Your version implies the Italians supported the massacre. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries. Apologies, I found it hard to keep it straight in my mind who was fighting who, but that is probably because it appears to be a very complex situation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • inconsistent presentation: ...carry out "cleansing actions" against... and then ...orders for 'cleansing actions' against ...
    • inconsistent presentation: "partisan" and "Partisan";
    • "The Corps consisted of some of Đurišić's former soldiers that were released..." This might be smoother as: "The Corps consisted of some of Đurišić's former soldiers who had been released...";
    • "By this time, whilst he still formally owed allegiance to..." This might sound smoother as: "By this time, although he still formally owed allegiance to...";
    • "he also owed some allegiance to the Germans and Nedić..." Perhaps smoother as: "he also owed some allegiance to the Germans and to Nedić..." (emphasis added to highlight the suggested change only);
    • "In early December 1944, the Germans and Đurišić's forces had to to withdraw from Montenegro..." Could something be said as to why, so that the reader has a little context? It would probably only need a small clause, e.g. "In early December 1944, the Germans and Đurišić's forces had to to withdraw from Montenegro, due to Allied advances in the region..." or something similar depending upon the reason;
      • Changed to "With the fall of Grahovo, Partisans from Herzegovina had a way into Montenegro and Đurišić had to withdraw. In early December 1944, the Germans and Đurišić's forces left, part of the way together, with the Germans going to Austria and Đurišić's forces to northeastern Bosnia to join Mihailović." -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 08:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that this is grammatically correct: "Đurišić, however, appears to have tried to outsmart the NDH forces and Drljević by sending his sick and wounded across the river, but retained his fit troops south of the river". ("sending" and "retained" don't work together here);
      • Simplified to "Đurišić apparently tried to outsmart them and sent only his sick and wounded across the river, keeping his fit troops south of the river." -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 14:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • given that this is a biography, if possible (i.e. the sources say), you should include mention of a wife and children if he had any. If these are mentioned, but not covered in detail, you could probably just add it at the end, in a manner similar to this: "Durisic was survived by his wife, so and so, and their x number of children". No dramas if its not mentioned in the sources, though;
      • Nothing is mentioned about Đurišić having a wife and children in the sources. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes 1 and 2 appear to be the same, so they should probably be consolidated as you have done with Note 5;
    • locations for publishers in the References. Currently one (Pavlowitch) has it, but the others don't. If you want to take this to FAC, it would be best to make this consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • italian should be capitalized, "anti-Partisan offensive" should not have the word partisan capitalized;
      • Every instance of "Italian" is capitalized. "anti-Partisan offensive" is stylized as such in the sources and in the rest of the article. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • there are numerous unreferenced sentences, that should be referenced per WP:V. While I am not insisting on all sentences to be referenced (it would be nice, but it is not an official requirement), I see sentences which contain strong claims that are unreferenced. For example: ..."the Chetnik Supreme Command ordered Montenegrin Chetnik units to carry out "cleansing actions" against Muslims". This is an EXAMPLE, not the only instance I'd like to see referenced.
      • Everything in the article is referenced. Having citations after every single sentence is cumbersome and is WP:OVERCITE. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some historians" - weasel, please list them.
    • The article seems light on ilinks, both blue and red. I see unliked locations (Ravna Gora), concepts ("Italian troops" should link to the Italian Army, Montenegrin resistance, Operation Weiss), anti-partisan offensive, Chetnik Supreme Command, Second Proletarian Division. This list is not exhaustive, but should clarify what I mean.
    • When foreign sources are used, their exact language should be declared, and it would be nice to see translations for titles and publishers.
    • What makes Glas javnosti, Večernje novosti and B92 websites reliable (they also should be ilinked in the article)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are prominent news providers in Serbia and are reliable for what is being claimed. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now; but I am still concerned about the rather untypical capitalization of "anti-Partisan" (and the lack of link to anti-partisan operation). Perhaps you could consider this issue further. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the co-nominator (who is embarrassed he hasn't done much to make the various improvements - great job, PRODUCER...), am I correct in my interpretation of this page that User:Piotrus, User:AustralianRupert, User:Dank and User:Zawed all now Support this article for A-Class? Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm my support. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Pavle_Đurišić&oldid=1079334981"