Jump to content

Talk:Allied occupation of the eastern Adriatic/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 10:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Review comments

[edit]
  • I fixed some dashes using a script
  • there are duplicate links of Francesco Saverio Nitti and Trogir
    • Removed (T)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the sources, Hore appears unused.
    • Removed (T)
  • All the citations that should have pages, have them.
  • All paragraphs have at least one citation at the end, most have many more throughout.
  • All the sources appear reliable.
  • No plagiarism or copyright concerns with the text

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • layout is per MOS
  • article is broad enough to cover topic, and focuses on the occupation
  • article is stable
  • pics are relevant

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox, perhaps you could put the flag icons in front of the country names and thereby avoid having to repeat them for each person? They just look like they are being used for decorative purposes as they are.
    • Moved per suggestion, seems less cluttered this way. (T)

Prose review

  • Lead
    • comma after "and the coast of Montenegro"
      • Edited as suggested (T)
    • what does "All of the allied nations had military presences in major ports." mean? That "All major ports had a military presence from all four allied nations"?
      • Yes, edited accordingly (T)
    • presumably you mean "pursue territorial claims, and conflicts"? not that the Italians were pursuing conflicts as well as territorial claims?
      • Yes, edited accordingly (T)
    • presumably you mean that the British occupation of Rijeka was significantly affected by the takeover etc?
      • Yes, edited accordingly (T)
    • To prevent Rijeka from becoming a city-state? This needs a little more context. Who was advocating this outcome and why?
      • Added some context as suggested (T)
    • suggest "support for preservation of Montenegro's independence or its inclusion in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes"→"Montenegro's future"
      • Edited as suggested (T)
    • suggest "The reasons for the occupation were addressed by"→"The occupation was concluded following"
      • Edited as suggested (T)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background
    • suggest "Following the 3 November 1918 Armistice of Villa Giusti, the Austro-Hungarian surrender,[2] and well ahead of the Paris Peace Conference,..."
    • I would start the sentence "To counter Italian demands, the State of Slovenes, ... laid a competing claim to the eastern Adriatic coast and islands.
    • what does "the security principle" principle mean in this context?
    • suggest "for Zadar and Šibenik only." and "status for Zadar only."
    • "let the President of the United States hold in check"? Might it be better to word it like "were content for the President of the United States to hold in check"?
    • suggest "symbol of the perfidy"
    • suggest "held it invalid by dint of the legal doctrine of clausula rebus sic stantibus – that the treaty was no longer applicable because there had been fundamental changes in the circumstances in which it was negotiated, due to the dissolution of Austria-Hungary."
      • This and all items above in this subsection have been edited as suggested (T)
    • the last para seems like it should be introduced earlier. It doesn't define the area the population figures refer to at all clearly. Presumably you mean the Kingdom of Dalmatia? But the geographical area of the Kingdom of Dalmatia doesn't really correspond to any of the occupied areas, so I'm not sure what the purpose of this para is. Perhaps the article should begin with defining the territory involved and covering its pre-war demographics? I'm not sure, but I do think this para seems like a bit of an afterthought, and is vaguely defined. Italian-speakers were concentrated in different places along the coast, which obviously meant they were the majority in some areas and a small minority in others. If there is information about the demographics of the separate allied occupation areas, you could do that in each section, but if not, you probably need to detail what is known about the situation pre-war along the whole coast and islands that was occupied after the war.
      • Yes, the territory the figures pertain to is the Kingdom of Dalmatia. Unfortunately, there are no data available for specific zones, especially because all zones (except the Italian one) were vaguely defined. I could specify these figures in the Italian zone section since they are mostly relevant to determining that there was an Italian majority in Zadar (70%) and relatively few Italians elsewhere in Dalmatia: 3% of the total population is 19,045 people, 13,247 of whom lived in Zadar. I think I saw census data for Šibenik and Split as well and I could add the two figures (assuming I find them) to Italian and US zone sections. There is no way of determining where did the remainder of the population live in Dalmatia, but the it would be possible to say that very few ethnic Italians lived in Dalmatia outside the three cities. The Kingdom of Dalmatia figure includes the Bay of Kotor, but not the remainder of the French zone. I could add the info on ethnic makeup of Rijeka (Corpus Separatum territory vs city including Sušak - the former being the extent of the Hungarian administered city and the latter being closer to the territory actually occupied). I'll try to fish out the census numbers for the Dalmatian cities other than Zadar and see how to improve (tomorrow).--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the information to the Italian zone section and to an explanatory note, and also edited the moved text a bit. Could you please have another look? Tomobe03 (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zones of occupation
    • the terminology is a bit confusing. Was the Naval Commission for the Adriatic the same as the Adriatic Commission? If not, which one is are the uses of commission referring to? If yes, then I suggest use one version of the name, and "commission" thereafter.
      • Yes, those are the same. Edited accordingly (T)
    • I think this section would benefit from a chronological treatment, ie start with who established it, who chair and was in it and where they met. Then explain the divisions of the zones, but frontload the Italians, because the other zones seem to have been built around the ambit claim of the Italians. How was it that the chair changed from Molà to di Revel in such a short period of time.
      • Reordered chronologically, moving Italians forward as suggested. Molà appears to have been a stopgap chair, as the Allied Naval Council appointed the replacement the same day (according to Davidonis). (T)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to review this article. I expect to address as many of the above issues as possible tomorrow and then work on your comments as they come up. I'm looking forward to further improving the article. Tomobe03 (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Always a pleasure to review your work in this area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest re-ordering the zone sections so that the Italian zone is first. I know that is not the order they are in as you head down the coast, but given the Italians seized territory and the others seem to have worked in around them, it would be good to explain the extent of what they grabbed first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about this. While your point is a good one, moving the Italian zone ahead of British creates a problem of needing to introduce D'Annunzio in the Italian zone section instead of British (Rijeka) zone. While this is possible, I think it would be odd. I could add a brief explanation what was occupied by the Italian forces by the time the zones were formally introduced (5/16/26 November) right after the sentence "The assignment of the Italian zone was the result of a fait accompli" to make the point completely clear. I could also add that being assigned a zone did not mean other allies were not there. Tomobe03 (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italian zone
    • not sure en route needs to be in italics per MOS:FOREIGN, because despite being French it is in common use in English.
      • Removed (T)
    • commas needed: "55 AS, Felice de Boccard,"
      • Added (T)
    • did Boccard say he was an ally of "Yugoslavia" a month before the KSCS was proclaimed? Yugoslavia in what sense? Or did he literally mean "South Slavs"?
      • Likely the latter. Gverić says "Yugoslavia", Ivoš omits the reference. On reflection, I decided to follow Ivoš more closely here and avoid the reference. (T)
    • ad hoc also doesn't need to be in italics.
      • Removed (T)
    • who were the ad-hoc National Guard? Italians, South Slavs, both?
    • was Mate Škarić an A-H rep?
      • Yes - edited accordingly (T)
    • how had Ziliotto been removed from power? By whom?
    • did the trailing TBs still have troops aboard?
    • captured→occupied, as no real military operations seem to have occurred.
      • Edited as suggested (T)
    • under what authority was Diaz operating to appoint the leader of the governorate? Surely that would have been an Italian government decision? At least to establish it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to Cipriani, there was a government decree allowing such appointments (in Dalmatia and elsewhere) and authorising issuing of decrees having the force of laws by such governors. (T)
    • suggest moving the sentence "The reduction of the number of troops was caused by the Italian government's decision to reduce military expenses.[49]" to immediately after the sentence ending "... or the hostile population."
      • Edited as suggested (T)
    • "To reduce the potential for visits to the zone" by whom?
      • That was meant as means of closing zone boundaries - on medical grounds, changed "visits" to "travel" (T)
  • British zone
    • not for here, but worth mentioning when it is first introduced in Background that the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was internationally unrecognised
      • Indeed. Noted now (T)
    • Once introduced, Paulo di Revel should just be Revel, per MOS:SURNAME (nobility)
      • Adjusted (T)
    • what was the Inter-Allied Command?
      • Appears to have been a joint allied command. Originally, I found a source referring to it as the "Međusavezničko zapovjedništvo", but more recently, I found another source referring to the command as the "joint allied command" - and changed the reference accordingly now. Little is said of it in any source I located. (T)
    • nearby Istrian peninsula
      • Edited as suggested (T)
    • do you mean "determine responsibility for the incident"?
      • Yes. Edited accordingly (T)
    • Granatieri di Sardegna→ 1st Regiment "Granatieri di Sardegna"
      • Not sure what should be changed here. (T)
        • Just change to the way you've referred to all the other regimental names, use quotation marks, not italics.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67 Where are we with this review? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no particular rush on my part. Actually the slow progress suits me just fine last few weeks. Tomobe03 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will be able to get it finished next week. School holidays here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder for reviewer in case needed. Setergh (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomobe03 and Peacemaker67, any updates? This review has been inactive for a whole month now. Matarisvan (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan, busy RL schedules I assume on both ends... I'm happy to wait as long as necessary. No rush whatsoever. We'll get there in the end.-- Tomobe03 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the inordinate delay. Getting on with it now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italian zone
    • I would move the population makeup of the Kingdom of Dalmatia out of a note and into the text. It is pretty important for the reader to understand that this was essentially a takeover on behalf of a small minority.
      • Done (T)
    • what happened to the YUgoslav National Council in Zadar? One day they are a joint committee, and a week later their flags aren't flying and the Italians are in charge?
      • No source I located says anything specifically about the council, but there are sources saying Biankini was arrested by Italian authorities, kept under house arrest and exiled (to Bakar before moving to Belgrade and becoming a Yugoslav government minister), Tončić-Sorinj was also arrested, exiled to Perugia (he was in his 70s so no much activities afterwards, but he appears to have moved to Austria - his son became an Austrian diplomat, and his grandson was an Austrian government minister); info on Alfirević is sketchy for the period between late 1918 and early 1920s - when he apparently moved to Split. The best I can do is mention briefly what happened to the three and let readers draw conclusions. (T)
    • say that Vis etc are islands
      • Done (T)
    • Did the Yugoslav National Council have any role in the Governorate?
      • In light of info on Biankini, I'd say no, certainly no source indicates there was any role it played in the period after the Italian troops arrived, but there is no source dealing with the council's fate specifically from what I can tell. (T)
    • I'd restate that Nitto took over in June 1919
      • Done (T)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • American zone
    • "between the Cape Planka"
      • Done (T)
    • are the National mentioned here the same pro-Italian group mentioned as operating in Zadar?
      • No. The ones in Zadar were pro-Italian, others not. I have clarified this in the prose. (T)
    • is there any demographic data available about the population of Split?
      • Yes, well not the city itself, but a wider municipality of Split. It is available in the census publication cited (Heft 2, page 104 in the pulldown menu). The Split municipality had the population of 99590 including 2354 (2.4%) Italians and Slavic majority of 96,3%. I found no city specific census data. All municipalities had a Slavic majority of 95% or more except the city of Zadar and the municipality of Kotor. In the latter the Slavic majority was "only" 80%, and the Italian minority (1.3%) was smaller than the German-speaking minority (3%). In Kotor municipality, as many as 11.1% were listed as foreign nationals. (T)
    • Destroyers→destroyers
      • Done (T)
    • link French destroyer Touareg and French destroyer Sakalave
    • Foudre is listed as a destroyer but earlier as a seaplane carrier?
    • link Italian cruiser Puglia at first mention and rm later link
      • The three items above have been edited as suggested. (T)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • French zone
    • perhaps mention that Kotor had been a major A-H naval base?
      • Edited accordingly (T)
    • link submarine chaser
      • It is already linked in the US zone chapter. (T)
    • link Battle of Caporetto
    • 2nd battalion→2nd Battalion, as this is a proper name
    • perhaps split the sentence "To support Italian policy of supporting the Montenegrin independence following contested elections for the Podgorica Assembly needed to decide on unification with Serbia, Carbone deployed a force to capture the nearby Montenegrin capital Cetinje on 23 November." Quite long and a bit rambling, I had to read it three times to understand what was meant.
      • Edited a bit. Hopefully this version flows better (T)
    • "The Austro-Hungarian fleet stationed in Kotor was handed over to the Navy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in July 1920", actually very little of it was. Mostly it was handed over to the major allies.
  • Aftermath
    • Nothing much here.

G'day Tomobe03. I'll let you get on with the above and I'll work through any unaddressed points from the earlier review work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really just a couple of minor points above now. I'll crack on with the image check and we'll be done here... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Kingdom of Dalmatia.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:Enrico Millo circa 1915 (cropped).jpg needs evidence is was published before 1 January 1930
  • File:RN Puglia.jpg - it isn't clear why this uses an Australian tag, and needs a US one as well
  • File:Paul Venel (crop).jpg relies on publication more than 70 years ago, but no evidence of publication is provided

The rest are fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67 I believe all of the above is addressed now. Please ping me if I missed anything. Tomobe03 (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. My apologies for the long drawn out nature of the review, got there in the end. Well done, great article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and comments. I believe the article benefited from the review considerably. No apologies needed, it turned out that the slow pace accidentally suited my schedule as well... Tomobe03 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allied_occupation_of_the_eastern_Adriatic/GA1&oldid=1295372839"