Talk:Yugoslav krone

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yugoslav krone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 09:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 22:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this one. I do not know Serbo-Croatian, so I will only review the sources in English. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed with SFNs.
	2b. 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).	Article is sourced to academic sources, as well as a contemporary magazine and a specialist numismatic publication.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 31.5%, but mostly a single proper noun.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent reverts.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images depict notes of the currency itself.
	7. Overall assessment.

Initial comments

• The title of the section "Aftermath" is kind of imprecise; it could be changed to something like "Economic impact". However, it's okay either way.
  • Since it's only one paragraph, it could also be part of the "Interim currency" section instead of being its own section.
• Most articles about currencies include sections that list denominations. I understand that it might be more complicated for the Yugoslav krone, since it's a provisional currency, but since you briefly mention the denominations, perhaps it can be included.
• I'll be doing some copyedits for grammar, etc.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Lead section

• The infobox should include the date of withdrawal.
  • No source gives an exact date, except that krone bills were replaced "gradually" (presumably one denomination at a time) by 1 January 1923 (implying in 1922) - so I added "1922" to the infobox (T)
• Just to make sure, there's no symbol for this currency, right?
  • It appears there was none. At least no source mentions one. (T)
• I think the translation "crown" is unnecessary.
  • Removed (T)
• that was originally used
  • Edited as suggested (T)
• I think the phrase these notes circulated throughout the country is unnecessary; that seems obvious for a currency.
• According to the official exchange rate, the Yugoslav krone's official value varied
  • Edited as suggested (T)
• You mention rubber stamping twice in the lead.
  • Revised to avoid repetitiveness, please have another look (T)
• You mention the same exchange rate twice in the lead.
  • Revised to avoid repetitiveness, please have another look (T)
• Delete Views about the rate remained conflicting in the KSCS and its successor states. since the details of this are mentioned in the next sentence.
  • Edited as suggested (T)
• Can "Austro-Hungarian krone" be abbreviated to something like "AHK"? It feels very repetitive to write out the whole thing.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Background

• The first part of this section is WP:coatracking. The Ramet 2006 source does not mention the Yugoslav krone, so it really doesn't seem relevant to include this information. For example, there is no reason to mention Albert Kramer or Prince Regent Alexander, since they're not mentioned for the rest of the article.
• At the time → During the occupation
• although the relevant wording was not very clear → although interpretations varied

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Marking of krone notes

• the body formally administering the former Austro-Hungarian territories within the new kingdom
• Ivo Belin is mentioned without saying who he was.
• There was talk of currency union at the time but it was regarded as unlikely. This is unspecific and MOS:weasely. Looking at the source, I don't think it quite supports the statement.
• It was carried out by authorities including
• Various types of rubber stamps of different shapes

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Exchange rate to dinar

• The information about proposals to withdraw the old currency could be moved to the "Background" section, since it's not about the exchange rate and it's about the initial plans for the currency.
• Besides the aforementioned part, the information in this section could be moved to the "Interim currency" section, since it's about the use of the currency.
• In Serbia, there were calls for the withdrawal of the krone notes with no compensation. From whom? (i.e., politicians or the public?)

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Interim currency

• a dinar amount and a four-times-higher krone amount since it's redundant
• I don't see why the phrase "krone on dinar" needs to be included.
• pursuant to a special agreement Vague, can be removed if there's no details about the agreement.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath

• The phrase the introduction of the Yugoslav krone and its exchange for KSCS dinar at the rate of 4:1 should be in the first sentence; otherwise it's unclear to readers what the issue is.
• There were and still are have been conflicting views
• It's not necessary to describe Alojz Ivanišević as Austrian-Croatian; just list the name alongside the other Croatian historians, as the Austrian part is irrelevant.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments. I'll go through them shortly and hopefully address the concerns you raise. --Tomobe03 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

I will review all the sources in English. Ref numbers as of this revision: — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Cuhaj 2010:

15. Y Except doesn't specify 1912
18. Y Except the source says trilingual, with Serbian and Croatian included separately.
27. Y

Gnjatović 2020: N Does not mention the list of authorities that performed stamping. Y
Also, this source specifies that KSCS was the first Austro-Hungarian successor state to nationalize its banknotes, which would later become a requirement; this would be useful context to include.

Hoare 2024: Y But your phrasing is very close to the source; please change it.

Hülsmann 2007:

6. Y But perhaps specify most of the newly established states, since the source says Austria was the exception.
16. Y Except it does not support the phrasing This gave weight to arguments; it actually says that Austria actually began doing this before Czechoslovakia.

Ramet 2006: As I mentioned earlier, this source is not about the Yugoslav krone; the details mentioned are not directly relevant to the topic. I think a different source should be used that more clearly shows the relevance to the subject.

Schlesinger 1920:

8. Y
10. N The article mentions the possibility of a currency union, but only to state an opinion; it does not really verify that it was a common idea.

Thank you for the review. I'll go through your remarks shortly. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)