Talk:Marija Bursać

Active discussions
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
A version of this article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 3 May 2015. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
WikiProject Socialism (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marija Bursać/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 13:26, 14 June 2015 (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.
  • Belgrade is overlinked in the last para.
  • perhaps "farming family" rather than "agricultural family"?
  • suggest piping the contemporary name, Young Communist League of Yugoslavia
  • typo: inhabited primaily
  • perhaps "only the boys attended elementary school in Drvar"
  • The reader does not know why Tito would have consulted Đuro Pucar.
  • was she wounded or injured?
  1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • check compliance with MOS:NUMERAL, I see a mix of numerals as words and in figures in the penultimate section.
  • suggest linking Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the lead.
  • suggest linking Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the Early life section
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • several of the references are missing a numerical identifier (oclc, isbn etc), available via Worldcat.
  2b. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  • suggestion: fn 32 and 35 could be shortened and cited fully in the References section.
  2c. it contains no original research. None detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • Just a query about the infobox picture. It appears to be from a book published in 1967, not 1939. This would make it PD in B-H, but not in Yugoslavia (if there still was one), and it would have become PD in B-H before the URAA date. If that is the case, the B-H and US licences would suffice. What evidence is there that the photograph was actually published in 1939? You might have to help me with the translation here.
  • Also the harvest pic, File:Žetva u Saničkoj dolini (1942).jpg. This is from the huge znaci gallery, but where was it published before that? To claim it is PD, you must be able to show it was published before either 1966 (Yugoslavia) or 1977 (B-H).
  • Likewise, File:Partizanke na Dinari (1943).jpg.
  • There is no evidence in the licensing of File:Marija Bursać 1984 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg that says that stamps are in the public domain in Croatia. It can be assumed that the stamp was published in 1984, but surely the artwork is copyrighted by the artist?
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • all of the images used are encyclopedic and the captions are appropriate. The licensing of the images themselves, there are some questions about.
  7. Overall assessment. On hold for seven days for some minor prose issues to be addressed, and for the image licensing issues to be addressed. Peacemaker67 All done, passing. (crack... thump) 09:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re 1a: The Serbo-Croatian name of the organisation was always Savez komunističke omladine Jugoslavije, the correct translation of which is "League of Communist Youth of Yugoslavia", and not at all "Young Communist League of Yugoslavia". I see that the article on SKOJ starts with that name, but it's someone's mistake. I'll make changes per your other suggestions.

Re 6a:

  • The 1967 book was published in Yugoslavia and it explains how and when the photo was made. It calls it "the well-known portrait of Marija [Bursać]", so apparently it was published sometime before 1967. There is no evidence that it was published in 1939, but I don't see what it has to do with omitting Yugoslavia from the license. The photo was transferred to Commons and tagged by an admin (I suppose they know about licensing). Your claim that the Yugoslavia license should be removed and the B-H one left looks rather confused.
    • Actually, now I have read the text in those tags, and now I see what you meant by referring to those dates. Initially I thought it very strange to remove Yugoslavia and leave B-H, since the photo was surely first published in SFR Yugoslavia (which B-H was just a part of). Sorry for the confusion. Vladimir (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • At the bottom of the Znaci gallery page, it says that all the documents that are published there are in the public domain. These WW2 photos come from the Museum of Yugoslav History, a part of which was formerly known as the Museum of Revolution (Muzej Revolucije). Some of the museum's photos came to Commons via USHMM, rather than Znaci. See for example PD tag on File:Kosta Pećanac, 20 October 1941.jpg.
  • I don't see why Croatia would have to be mentioned in that license. According to this, all Yugoslavia stamps issued before 1991 are PD. Vladimir (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Marija_Bursać.jpg: without a known earlier publication we can't use the Yugoslavia tag - and we don't need it, as the Bosnia tag is sufficient to demonstrate its PD status in the US (PD in Bosnia before 1996). But if we can't prove 1939 publication that note should be removed from the URAA tag.
  • File:Žetva_u_Saničkoj_dolini_(1942).jpg: the website doesn't specify in what country the image is PD - we need to demonstrate that it is public domain in at least the US. Without a known publication date we can't do that because we don't know if it was PD at the URAA date. The same problem aplies to File:Partizanke_na_Dinari_(1943).jpg.
  • File:Marija_Bursać_1984_Yugoslavia_stamp.jpg: government works from Yugoslavia are now governed by the laws of all of its successor states. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I think I addressed the prose issues. Fixed File:Marija Bursać.jpg and File:Marija Bursać 1984 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg; tagged the latter with Gov templates for those Yugoslav republics that have them. Vladimir (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Prose all good now. Given Nikki's opinion is the same as mine regarding the lack of publication date on the other two images, they will have to go. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I replaced them. Vladimir (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
And those licences are good. Well done, passing. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Peacemaker67! Vladimir (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

CategorizationEdit

This is hardly an adequate edit summary. Could you please elaborate it here? I have cited examples that appear to contradict you. Category:Serbian people of World War II can either include Serbians (Srbijanci) or Serbs (Srbi), i.e. either people of Serbia regardless of ethnicity (such as Sinan Hasani, an Albanian, and Moša Pijade, a Jew) or Serbs regardless of origin. It is hard to justify having Hasani, Pijade and Bursać all together in this category. Surtsicna (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair point about inconsistencies in the current system of categorisation. Perhaps the underlying issue is the system of categorisation for Yugoslavs itself? The idea that we can have Bosnia and Herzegovina people of World War II is essentially ahistorical, as Bosnia and Herzegovina had not existed as a political entity since 1929 when the banovina were brought in. Same for Serbia and until 1939, Croatia. Surely we should have Yugoslav Serbs of World War II, Yugoslav Jews of World War II and Yugoslav Albanians of World War II. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
With the exception of Slovenia, Yugoslav republics date from 1943, so having Bosnia and Herzegovina people of World War II is not entirely anachronistic. An issue with Category:Yugoslav Serbs of World War II is verbosity - weren't virtually all Serbs "Yugoslav Serbs"?. The other categories in Category:People of World War II by nationality do not appear to be based on ethnicity, with the exception of Category:Jewish people of World War II. Curiously, many Jews are found only in nationality-based categories, i.e. not included in Category:Jewish people of World War II. Anyway, I would be more in favour of having Category:Yugoslavs of World War II than Category:Yugoslav Serbs of World War II, Category:Yugoslav Croats of World War II, etc. If the present system of categorization is to be kept, however, we do need to make it consistent. If Hasani and Pijade are Serbians, then Bursać is not, and vice versa. Surtsicna (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
If nationality relates to the country (which appears to be the case), Yugoslavia was the country in WWII, whether Kingdom or Communist. I would personally prefer that it was structured as Category:Yugoslav people of World War II, and other categorisations covered ethnicity. This would allow consistent coverage, ie Sinan Hasani would be Category:Yugoslav people of World War II and also Category:Kosovar Albanians. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
That sounds perfectly reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Not to everyone, apparently. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha, so I see! But Category:Yugoslav Partisans is indeed a category within Category:Yugoslav people of World War II. Surtsicna (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I've put Category:Yugoslav people of World War II up for discussion here along the lines I proposed here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That categorisation is okey and, basically, it is used in the article: "Yugoslav Partisans members" + "Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina". As Surtsicna said, "Yugoslav Partisans members" is within "Yugoslav people of World War II". Vladimir (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Return to "Marija Bursać" page.