Talk:Croatia

GAR

Croatia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist as doesn't meet GA criteria 2 or 3 (insufficient citations and lack of recent updates). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Article has "This section needs to be updated" tags in five sections: Economy, Transport, Demographics, Education, Sports, and As of 2019, the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration employed 1,381[needs update]. It also has "needs additional citations for verification" tag for Sports, and a 'citation needed' in Healthcare section. 'clarification needed' is in Independent Croatia (1991–present) section. With 6 big orange templates article needs work to remain a GA. Artem.G (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Slightly longer than preferable, and with some oversubsectioning. However, overall not a bad article as far as country articles go, hopefully this can be fixed. CMD (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Delist: sections need to be updated, while citations are needed in selected places. As CMD noted, should be fairly easy to get back to GA standard, should someone wish to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Establishment history '

The article is missing certain points in its 'establishment history' section. Some others should be rewritten in a more precise manner. In particular, additions should include the shortlived State of Slovenes, Croats, and the Serbs (the first Yugoslav pan-Slavic state) in 1918 and, The Independent State of Croatia in 1941. It is also more accurate to spcicify the 'Creation of Yugoslavia' as a kingdom, the First Yugoslavia, and further, to add the establishment of the Socialist, Second Yugoslavia in 1945, after the collapse of the Independent State of Croatia. Kupøla0 (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the problematic part about overly broad infobox fields like "establishment history", they necessitate this sort of editorializing while ostensibly providing a summary.

It would make sense if we made the article consistent with others. I first checked these:

• Germany - FA-class, no establishment history in infobox
  • At the time of FA assessment in 2011, it was 4 entries, huge span
• France - C-class, 3 entries, huge historical span
• Italy - C-class, no establishment history in infobox
• Poland - B-class, 8 entries, huge historical span

Then I realized it's better to check according to higher standard, so I checked Category:FA-Class country articles:

• Australia - FA-class, 4 entries, short span (one century)
  • At the time of FA assessment in 2010, it was 4 entries, short span
• Japan - FA-class, no establishment history in infobox
  • At the time of FA assessment in 2011, it was 4 entries, huge span
• Bulgaria - FA-class, 6 entries, huge span
  • At the time of FA assessment in 2018, it was 4 entries, huge span

And from Category:GA-Class country articles:

• Philippines - GA-class, 5 entries, short span
  • At the time of GA assessment in 2010, it was 5 entries, huge span
• Jordan - GA-class, 3 entries, short span (one century)
  • At the time of GA assessment in 2016, it was 2 entries, short span
• Wales - GA-class, 5 entries, huge span
  • At the time of GA assessment in 2020, it was 4 entries, huge span

So the general pattern seems to be that historical span doesn't matter much. These lists tend to get inflated over time, but the gold standard is around 4 entries or less.

We're at 9 entries here now, so adding more is just not tenable. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Croatian history is somewhat more layered compared to a number of other countries, but that is a different topic. Since there are already 9, adding just these 2 more would fully complete Croatia's historical establishment overview. With respect and, more importantly though, comparing the number of entries to those of different countries is simply pointless. Accuracy and thoroughness in information is of sole importance. A good day! :) Kupøla0 (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The infobox is largely a summary of a summary (i.e. summary of the lead section which is itself a summary of the article). This means that it is not a place to present all polities, but only the most significant ones and especially not debatable ones (such as the SHS and the NDH which are normally excluded from "successions" of Croatian states as states not sanctioned by royal succession or parliamentary procedure). If it is necessary to present all 9 or 11 incarnations together for them to make sense, none should be included in the infobox. It should be quality over quantity in this area.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the Establishment history section could and should be further shortened rather than expanded. EU and NATO memberships are not key events in the country's formation. Secession from Austria-Hungary is somewhat redundant with creation of Yugoslavia (the latter is a key event). –Vipz (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

NATO and EU can be certainly removed because they don't have anything to do with the section. Secession from Austria-Hungary and joining of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs were officially declared by the Croatian Parliament. The Kingdom of SHS and Yugoslavia weren't officially declared by the Croatian Parliament, NDH was merely a short-lived occupation puppet-state, basically both states were usurping the State of SHS (and specifically of Croatia). There was also Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, but that's not needed, but there should be a link to Socialist Republic of Croatia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Sport section split tag

@Moxy, what is the purpose of the tag to split the sports section to the new article Sports in Croatia? The proposed target article already exists and no explanation has been added to the talk page whatsoever.

There appears to had been a commented out "see Canada#Sports for featured article example" added to the article code - which is quite uninformative. Since the article code is not a good place for talk, I have removed that comment since.-- Tomobe03 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

See the sport section at any GA of FA article at WP:COUNTRYSIZE - note the size.and layout. Moxy🍁 14:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Just so others do not have to read WP:COUNTRYSIZE and explore article stats: I gather from the non-answer that you find 11k words excessive compared to 8-10k range and thought to urge others to trim the article by 10%-ish by adding a tag suggesting creation of an already existing article on Sports in Croatia. Tomobe03 (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Too much detail - sub sections on random sports? - a section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts Canada#Sports - Japan#Sports. Moxy🍁 17:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

What important facts are missing specifically? What unimportant facts are there? Have you tried to establish consensus by, for example, raising the issue at the talk page? ...or editing? Pointing out that featured class articles are better than B class articles is pointing out the obvious, and hardly helpful. If the article were an FA candidate undergoing a review, there would be someone to address or ignore them. If you think slapping a notice and doing nothing to at least start discussion or better yet improve the article helps in any way you are wrong. It is as useless as tagging all Wikipedia articles except featured ones as needing expansion or summarizing.

Your complaints that the article is 10% too big compared to the COUNTRYSIZE guideline (not a policy) and that there are subsections, pointing to TOOMUCHDETAIL essay (also not a policy), and offering an off-the cuff remark that what's included is unimportant are entirely unrelated to the notice requesting creation of an already existing article. - posting random notices? Tomobe03 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

We'll try to fix it myself in the next few days. Moxy🍁 05:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)