Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers controversial negotiations between the German forces in Yugoslavia and senior members of Tito's Partisans in March 1943 that went beyond prisoner swaps and drew the ire of the Comintern. It recently passed Milhist A-Class review and I consider it is very close to or meets the FA criteria. Suggestions for improvements will be gratefully received. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

  • "the book did not accept the mythology": I don't know what this is referring to. The same phrase is used in both the lead and the body.
  • "In August 1942, ... Tito's Yugoslav Partisans had captured a group of eight Germans": if they were captured in August 1942 I would cut "had"; if they were captured before August and the date isn't known I'd make it "By August 1942".
  • "After their capture, Ott stated that he had an important message to deliver to Partisan headquarters, and after this had been arranged he suggested to the Partisans that his group be exchanged for Partisans held by the Germans in jails in Zagreb": it's not immediately clear what "this had been arranged" refers to. I think it means something like "after he had been taken to Partisan headquarters", but I initially thought it meant "after he delivered his message", before realizing that the last part of the sentence must be the message. How about: "tt told his captors that he had an important message to deliver to Partisan headquarters, and after he had been taken there he suggested to the Partisans that his group be exchanged for Partisans held by the Germans in jails in Zagreb"?
  • "Tito was willing to exchange the eight Germans": if Otto was part of the group, and the group was eight Germans, weren't there only seven left to be exchanged once Ott was sent as messenger back to the Germans?
  • Suggest linking "SA" to Sturmabteilung.
  • "the Abwehr were considering more than prisoner exchanges": unless I'm missing it, you don't say what more they might have been considering.
  • Velebit's role is not given when he is first mentioned; you do this for nearly all the other significant figures and I think it would be good to do it here too.
  • In the list of points made by the Partisans, I think it needs to be "stated that they considered the Chetniks their main enemies", to be in agreement with the structure of the other points.
  • "the short period of respite had in fact been a trap": I don't follow -- what made it a trap? A trap implies that the Partisans did something they would not have otherwise done that put them in a weaker position, but I don't see anything like that described.
  • "These negotiations resulted in the exchange of between 600 to 800 Partisans in total": shouldn't this also mention the approximate number of German prisoners exchanged?
  • "The negotiations first came to light in 1949": I'm not clear what "came to light" means. The British knew about the contacts at the time, so does this mean the first time the information was declassified or leaked in some way? Or does it just mean that 1949 was the first time attention was focused on the negotiations, because of the book?
  • "Martovski pregovori (The March negotiations)": not sure of the MoS rules here, but shouldn't it be "Negotiations", even though it's just a translated title? You use title case for the other translated titles.
  • Quite a few books are listed at the end of the article. A "Further reading" or "Primary sources" section might be worth it.
  • It looks like you haven't consulted some of the books listed; the ones you don't list as sources seem to be either older (Clissold) or not in English. Is there any reason to think you might be missing key material not covered in the other sources?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, Mike. I believe I have addressed all your comments except the last point. I have some Serbo-Croat skills and have read several of the books in that language that are accessible. Some of the books are obviously quite old and have effectively been superseded by later ones, and some a a little suspect due to the location and time they were published, but I have no reason to believe I've missed any key material. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the points I can see are addressed; unless I'm missing something I think the others haven't been fixed. For the "trap" question, I saw the comment about the Partisans being encircled in Case Black, but I still don't understand why the negotiations could be regarded as a trap. If the Germans were using negotiations as a trap, that would imply that if it hadn't been for the negotiations they wouldn't have been able to encircle the Partisans in Case Black. If they could do that without Case Black, it could be called a blind, or a front, but not a trap, I'd think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Mike, my mistake. As far as Ott was concerned, he was sent to Zagreb "on parole" to facilitate the negotiations, but officially he was still a prisoner of the Partisans until the transfer was completed. The total number of Germans (and Italians and Croatian Home Guard troops) exchanged after the March negotiations is not recorded in any of the sources I've read. I'm going to go back over the sources on the "trap" issue and review the logic of it, as you suggest. I'll ping you when I'm done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of Germans (etc.) exchanged isn't critical; if you have it, I'd say mention it, but if it's not in the sources it's not a problem. I would just clarify to the reader that Ott was still "on parole" as you put it; that will clear up the eight vs. seven issue. Once that and the "trap" issue are cleared up I expect to support; this is a very solid article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    G'day @Mike Christie: I have added a link and material regarding Ott's "parole". I have also reviewed the sources on the negotiations, and two things are apparent. Firstly, that the "trap" idea is limited to Pavlowitch, and secondly, he does not explain its basis, making it very hard to sustain his line of argument. I have therefore removed it, as a perspective too WP:FRINGEY for a FA. I hope that clears it up. Thank you for your review, you have been very thorough, especially with the theoretical aspects, and while my source review indicates I have got the balance right in every respect but this, the "trap" idea really did not have the legs it appeared to have when I included it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I've supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- recusing from coord duties:

  • Prose is very good IMO -- engaging but neutral in tone -- so I didn't end up copyediting anything.
  • Structure is straightforward and the level of detail seems appropriate.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review above, and add a source review below.
  • No dab or dup links. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • No issues for me re. reliability of sources.
  • Formatting looks correct and consistent; only minor query is that you link locations in the References section but not in Further Reading. Not really fussed whether the locations are linked or not, but perhaps should be consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Ian. I've rm the loc links for consistency. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Being a citizen of a country than was part of Yugoslavia, I'm amazed by the article's comprehensiveness and scrutiny. It kinda bugs me that my native language doesn't feature its own version of the article, but I'll add that on my to do list.--Retrohead (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and comment, Retrohead. Greatly appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: (less Ian). Entirely self-interested, I know. But there appears to be a consensus to promote here, images and prose have been checked as well. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I supported this at A-Class and reading it again I think it is FAC quality. A few nit-picks.

  • "Tito himself mentioned the prisoner exchanges to the Comintern in Moscow, who was taken aback" I would say "were taken aback".
  • "These negotiations resulted in the exchange of between 600 to 800 Partisans in total." Is no figure available of Germans exchanged?
  • "The negotiations were first mentioned publicly in 1949 when Stephen Clissold published his Whirlwind: An Account of Marshal Tito's Rise to Power. This was closely followed by the publishing of Wilhelm Höttl's Die Geheime Front" - published followed by publishing. The second one is not needed. Ditto in the next paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dudley, first and third points addressed, I hope. So far as the numbers of Germans, I haven't seen any figures in any sources I've read, or even any primary documents. Perhaps it was suppressed for propaganda reasons due to the Comintern interest? Cheers for the review and support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - could I put up a fresh solo FAC? This one has been open for two months, and has six supports and no opposes. Let me know? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Sure thing. I was actually planning to look through the pages Ian recused himself from this morning, so thanks for the ping! --Laser brain (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/German–Yugoslav_Partisan_negotiations/archive1&oldid=1088823578"