Talk:Milan Bandić/GA1

GA Review

I will review this page for GA status. H1nkles (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Critique

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are necessarily keeping it from GA approval. You will get a good idea of how I'm leaning as I work through the article. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article. H1nkles (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Lead

• You indicate in the first paragraph that Bandić lives with his "spouse", Vesna, yet you go on to say that they divorced in 1996. Would it be more correct to list her as his ex-spouse or is there another wrinkle to the marriage issue that causes you to intentionally list Vesna still as his "spouse"?

 Done The divorce is a controversial thing and it's probably due to fiddling with city-owned apartments, but to stay away from POV-ing, I'll just put "ex" until I find a good source.

• Bandić is "well known and highly praised", according to your second paragraph. This statement along with your statement about him being infamous smack of weasel words. See WP:WEASEL for more information on this.

 Done I turned the volume down and sourced the statement.

• What party opposition does he remain the leader of? Is there a name? Your wikilink is to Opposition_(politics), this isn't very helpful in this article.

 Done I explained it in the article. His fraction is probably not notable enough to warrant a section or an article on its own.

• Who perceives Bandić as the third most powerful politician in Croatia? Again use of weasel words.

 Done Changed to "powerful" and found sources. It was written by someone else, but still no excuse to keep. I must've overlooked it while looking for strange and unsourced statements.

• "Bandić is also sometimes perceived as one of the most active Zagreb mayors...." Who perceives this? How is this measured? Weasel wording.

 Done Cited.

• The lead is a good summary of the article but the issues listed above seriously hinder it. There are also some significant grammatical issues, for example the first sentence in the second paragraph has two subjects, and really should be two sentences. Since I don't believe, as a reviewer, that I should do major reworking of the article I am reviewing, I will leave it up to you to edit as you see fit. H1nkles (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, the article's been waiting on WP:GAN for over a month. As I'm not a native English speaker, I tend not to recognize these grammatical errors, so please note if you find more. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Personla Life and Health Problems" Headings

• What is the name of the high school he went to in Grude? If you don't know the name then make it generic, "a high school in Grude" it is confusing to say, "...the high school in Grude".

 Done The school's name is "Antun Branko Šimić."

• Again there is the issue of the divorce. Is he divorced from his wife? If so then you can't say that he's currently married to her. It's confusing the way it is currently written.

 Done See the explanation in the sectio about the lead.

• This sentence is awkward, "Some journalists have connected this event to his legal troubles with buying a city-owned apartment.[4]" Try to avoid using verbs that end with "ing".

 Done I hope it's clearer now.

• After his stroke, who regarded his political carrier as finished? Weasel words.

 Done Removed until I can find a proper source for this.

• The final sentence in this section is poorly worded, his health problems aren't due to a statement, they are due to him working 15-16 hours a day. Consider rewording. H1nkles (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done I'm sorry it's so obscure, so you should know that "15-16 hours a day" thing is his statement and that statement is disputed. For all we know, it might be due to arguing with his wife or some congenital disorder, but he claims he works 15-16 hours a day and also that he's often sick because of that. BTW, thanks for pointing this out, his autobiography actually claims he works 16 hours a day. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Admiral, Thanks for your work on this, I will take a look at your edits. I appreciate that you have taken my suggestions as they were intended - to make the article better. Some take it personally and I sometimes fear reading their reaction to my critique. Thank you for your efforts to make the article better. Personally, I think 16 hours a day is a bit of an exaggeration, but as long as you show that this is his statement, rather than a statement of absolute fact, then you should be ok. H1nkles (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe him either, but this "hard work" thing is very well known in Zagreb. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Political Career and First and Second Term" Headings

• This sentence is awkward: "Bandić became a member of the Communist Party and remained there after the first democratic elections, being one of the few Herzegovina Croats to do so". You should date the first democratic elections, and also don't end a sentence with "so".

 Done I fixed the sentence. I agree, it was badly written.

• Move the sentence about him being an asset to the communist party to after the sentence about Franjo Tuđman. It makes more sense there.

 Done

• Also the sentence about Franjo Tuđman and the HDZ and SDP is a run-on sentence, try to break it up into two sentences.

 Done

• Please explain a little more clearly what led to the Zagreb Crisis and how the elections played a role. This is not clear in the article.

 Done I explained the events of Zagreb Crisis and what did Bandić do there. It's not very relevant to the article, but Bandić did a background role there.

• Check your tense in the final sentence of the first paragraph, up until then it was all past tense and then you say that Bandic becomes the leader of the Zagreb SDP.

 Done My bad.

• Try not to put citations in the middle of the sentence, rather move it to the end.

 Done I removed all the occasions of this in the Political career section.

• The Badic rise to power and popularity sentence is a run-on sentence and needs to be cited.

 Done I threw out the weasel words. Cited, too.

• "Still, HNS entered a coalition with SDP in 2001[14] and co-ruled Zagreb until 2005, at which time they will step out, again because of Bandić.[15]" Check your tense in this sentence, it sounds as though HNS and SDP are going to step out of power in the future, yet they co-ruled until 2005 - confusing.

 Done It was a bad attempt to entertain the readers.

• Again a tense issue in this sentence, "In 2002, Bandić was involved in a motor vehicle accident heavily covered by media and SDP council ruled that he has to irrevocably resign.[2]" The council ruled he had to resign.

 Done

• I think you should remove this sentence, "Nonetheless, Bandić retained control of the city." It appears to be an exagerration, did he have complete control of the city? If so then he wouldn't have been in a feud with a political rival, which you go on to outline in the remainder of the paragraph.

 Done I changed the sentence to remove the dubious control statement. I still have to find a source for him being the deputy, though.

• The deputy mayor sentence has redundant use of the word, "plans", consider another word.

 Done Fixed now.

• This wording is not very encyclopedic, "and trying to take Milanović down at the party elections", consider rewording the sentence.

 Done "replace" is the new word.

• I don't understand this sentence, "Bandić actually supported the concert, contrary to his expected political action." What was his expected political action? Do you mean his expected political position?

 Done I hope it's better now. As a socialist and former communist, he was supposed to forbid and condemn the concert as a nationalistic outrage, instead of encouraging it and putting it on the main city square.

• This line, "Zoran Milanović responded instead of Bandić," contradicts the sentence above, which indicated that Bandic did respond by telling the police to do their jobs.

 Done Cleaned up.

• The final paragraph in the second term heading is a stub and should either be eliminated or incorporated into another paragraph. Also in this paragraph are weasel words about how he's considered the third most powerful politician in Croatia. There are no sources to back up this assertion. H1nkles (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done That's not my creation, so I had no idea what to do with it while I expanded the article. I moved it to the lead now, replacing a similar sentence conveying the same message. Until there's something more to be said about this, it will stay there. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Mayoral Acheivements" Heading

• You have several POV statements in the first paragraph, for example: "He is widely renowned for the so-called Zagreb Apartment model...." It isn't neutral to say that he is widely renowned for something he has done. Better to use terms like, "Urban renewal specialists have pointed to the so-called Zagreb Apartment model, instituted by Banic, as an example of innovative attempts to improve the housing conditions of Zagreb's population." And then cite it.

 Done I changed it to "credited." It's probably best to avoid these claims altogether.

• You wikilink POS, which leads to a list of various articles that could apply to the abbreviation, POS. I'm not sure what it is referring to in the context of this sentence. You should probably spell it out and explain what POS is to the readers so that you avoid jargon.

 Done Explained.

• That final sentence in the first paragraph of this section is confusing over all. Perhaps when I know what POS means I'll have a better understanding of what you're trying to communicate, but as it stands I don't really understand what is being said here.

 Done I believe you should find it easier to understand now.

• This sentence should be trimmed down, "Bandić has shown eagerness to expand and modernize Zagreb in the area of transportation, hiring Ivan Dadić as his personal counselor in this area". Consider this, "Bandić had emphasized the importance of modernizing Zagreb's transportation system. Ivan Dadić has been hired to counsel Bandic on this issue." And then cite it.

 Done Do I need a cite for Bandić's emphasizing or just for Dadić? The Ljubljanska renovation alone is something that was procrastinated for decades. BTW I removed the Dadić part as I can't find an online reference for this, although I remember reading about it in the newspapers.

• You need to cite Bandić's emphasis on modernizing Zagreb's transportation system. H1nkles (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• "or building numerous " I think this should be an "and" instead of an "or" but I'm not sure.

 Done You're probably right. I'm not a native speaker, so I don't fare very well in correcting such small errors.

• "Also attributed to Bandić are many accomplishments built or being built during his term. " He didn't build accomplishments, this is poorly written.

 Done This stands corrected now. When I read some sentences, it seems as if I was drunk when I wrote them. Thank you for coping with this.

• "One of the most publicized such efforts is the Arena Zagreb (located in Lanište), whose construction is Bandić arranged and is currently trying to speed up.[44][45][46]" This sentence is also poorly written. Perhaps, "Bandic arranged the construction of Arean Zagreb; he is currently trying to speed it's completion."

 Done Fixed this too.

• To be honest this section feels a bit like a promotion of his accomplishments. You should be careful to keep a neutral tone to the article so that it does not become overly weighted towards political promotion. Using terms like "widely renowned," really push the reader to believe a certain way about him as a politician. I note that you have a heading entitled "Incidents", I will read that to see if you balance out the positive with the negative. H1nkles (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay; I had insufficient time for Wikipedia this week. I have stricken out the weasel words and I believe it is fine now. He is indeed probably the most active mayor of Zagreb after Većeslav Holjevac, but it'll be hard to find a reference for this claim. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Incidents" and "Cvjetni prolaz" Headings

• This intro sentence needs to be worked on, "While being a respected mayor, Bandić is well known in public for his incidents and media affairs, which have once caused him to resign as a mayor and still continue to damage his political reputation.[47][48]" You have past and present progressive tenses in the same sentence. This sentence should be broken into two. Also you use wording like "...being a respected mayor..." who respects him? The rest of this heading gives plenty of reasons to refute the claim that he is a respected mayor so this ends up being somewhat contradictory, and also lacks NPOV.

 Done

• Also replace indicents with controversies. Perhaps say, "Bandic is also a controversial figure who has had several run-ins with the media." The well known in public comment is weasel wording. It would be important to find a citation that calls him controversial, and has a breakdown of several of his issues with the public and the media.

 Done I don't think I need a cite for the claim that he's an important public official in Zagreb. I have found a few English-language cites which calls him controversial.

• This sentence, "Bandić tried to bribe the officer. He was unsuccessful, so he then threatened the officer" should be changed. Instead something like this, "Bandic unsuccessfully attempted to bribe the office, at which point he..."

 Done I used your suggestion.

• I have questions about this paragraph, "An incident occurred in April 2004. The mayor at the time, Vlasta Pavić criticized Bandić for having spent 15 million kunas (about US$3.26 million) of city money to buy a lot, which the City of Zagreb could not use (the Zagrepčanka case). In response, Bandić cursed her mother.[48][25] Zagrepčanka case ensued with charges on attacking a court of law being brought up against Bandić and others involved.[49]" Was the Zagrepčanka case about the purchasing of the lot of land or was it about Bandić's response to the accusations? Also is should be "with charges of attacking a court of law..." What were these charges? How did Bandić attack a court of law? What was the outcome of the case? This should be discussed as well.

 Done Fixed. I don't remember what the criminal charges really were, and I can't find a good cite anymore, so I'm leaving the "court of law" part out.

• You wikilink "As of October 2007" and direct it to the page on October 2007, but as far as I can tell there is no mention of Bandić on this page. This is probably not a worthwhile link especially since you don't wikilink any of the other dates you mention.

 Done Removed the link.

• Do you have a citation for the falling asleep incident on June 16, 2006? You'll need one since you cite the other falling asleep incident.

 Done It's cited in the "Bandić zaspao u HNK" citation. You can the excerpt of the Globus article in the middle of the page, just search on the page or search for "Bandic was asleep" in the Google translation (it's atrocious, but readable).

• In this sentence, "In May 2008 Bandić left his car incorrectly parked in the middle of Pavao Šubić Avenue presenting a road hazard and causing traffic problems while presenting a camera system designed to issue tickets to red light runners, improperly parked cars and alike." You use the word "presenting" twice in the same sentence but with two different meanings. Please change one of these so as to alleviate confusion. Also you say, "alike" but I think you mean "the like".

 Done

• I would remove, "which had to drive over tram tracks to bypass his car." this fact. It seems unnecessary to the context of the statement.

 Done Yes, it's probably irrelevant to the incident.

• Add the word "Case" to the "Cvjetni prolaz" subheading.

 Done

• You don't have a "supposed demolition". Either it was demolished or it wasn't, I don't know why the word, "supposed" is there.

 Done That should have been "proposed," but I'll just delete the word since Horvatinčić already started the demolition.

• I'm confused by these sentences, "The project is led by Tomislav Horvatinčić, a construction entrepreneur, who is allegedly responsible for using illegal means to try to evict the current dwellers. These include some possessions of Zagreb eparchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the home of the late poet Vladimir Vidrić." Especially "These include", who are these? Are you referring to the current dwellers? If so then you should change the reference to the possessions of the Zagreb eparchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Call them churches (or houses if that is what they are) owned by the Serbian Orthodox Church.

 Done

• The biggest issue with this heading is the grammar. I've listed some of the grammatical problems but this is only a start.

Well, there's little I can do here.

• Perhaps submitting it to WP:PRV and specifically ask for a grammar review and edit help. I'd be happy to have done this but as the GA Reviewer I'm not supposed to do significant work on the article I am reviewing. Doing so would remove my objectivity. H1nkles (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm wondering how come I didn't think of that. I've asked User:Keeper76 to look at the article. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you have current updates on some of the cases pending against Bandic (especially the USKOK investigation - that seems like a big one, and this Cvjetni prolaz case), you should update the article. That would add credibility to this section. H1nkles (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall opinion

Here are some of my suggestions on the article that will help to bring it up to GA quality:

• You mentioned earlier that you are not a native English speaker. I commend you on undertaking this subject and bringing this controversial political figure to light for English-speaking readers. I certainly could not do the same in Croatian. The article will need a thorough grammatical overhaul. Perhaps someone at Project:Croatia who has the expertise and knowledge about Bandic, and who also has a strong grasp on the nuances of English grammer and prose, could work on this. I've tried to point out some of the grammatical corrections but this is very much a surface review. A deeper prose and grammatical review will need to be done.
• It's already been indicated that more images will need to be added, I agree. One poor quality photo of Bandic isn't enough. Perhaps a photo of some of the areas of Zagreb that you mention would be good.
• Citations - currently 56 out of 59 citations are in either Croatian or Serbian. There has to be more citations in English for an English GA. As the GA reviewer it is required of me to review the citations to check for credibility and to make sure they are actually saying what you indicate they are saying. I can't do that. Also if someone who doesn't speak Croatian wants to do more research they will have a difficult time due to a lack of English sources. I understand that there may not be a lot of English sources out there but please do your best to get more sources in English. It will take more work.
• Regarding POV, as I've stated earlier this article is not very neutral at times. The problem is that as a reader who knows absolutely nothing about Croatian politics I am left feeling that Bandić is a well-respected, renowned, beloved, scandal-ridden crook. Work on being more balanced in your descriptions of him. Remove the glowing adjectives as these reduce neutrality, which I think you are striving for.
• Thank you for your quick responses to my recommendations, that shows me that you are really working hard to make this article better. I look forward to seeing further updates. I'll keep the article on hold and see where it progresses over this week. I'll comment on changes as they happen. Keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Work Needs to be Done

At this point I have identified several issues that need to be addressed. I am not going to continue with the indepth review as I feel as though these issues need to be fixed before I continue. I will place the review on hold pending further work. If no work has been done on the article in 1 week then I will proceed with deciding the article's GA status. H1nkles (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)