Talk:Allied occupation of the eastern Adriatic/GA1

GA review

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

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]

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?
  - Italians - edited accordingly (T)
- was Mate Škarić an A-H rep?
  - Yes - edited accordingly (T)
- how had Ziliotto been removed from power? By whom?
  - I've expanded this a bit to explain removal and reinstatement of Ziliotto; Could you take another look (T)
- did the trailing TBs still have troops aboard?
  - Do you mean the TBs trailing 55 AS? (T)
- captured→occupied, as no real military operations seem to have occurred.
  - Edited as suggested (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)

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]