Talk:Treaty of Rapallo (1920)

Slovenia?

Regarding the last edit of anonymous user I'd like to ask: what territory gained by the "Treaty of Rapallo" lies in Slovenia? --Romanm 21:26, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User DancingPhilosopher

Dear user, you have to realise that when you massively modify an article that has been there for a while you should first go trough the talk page or inevitably your edits will be reverted because you are deleting portion of text that were agreed with large consensus in the past. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have only replaced the number which was previously been rounded to 1.5 million, with more precise (less rounded) number - 1.3 million. I gave the source, too. It clearly shows that 1.5 was not the precise number. --DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 15:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the version before your edits. Clearly if your edits are reverted you need to go trough the talk page or you will be reverted automatically. This article is about the Treaty of Rapallo, not about Italianization. This last subject is treated in the relevant article. You have already tried to push your POV's without any success in the article Italianization, now you want to do elsewhere. This attitude is becoming disruptive and if your aim is to continue "contributing" to the project in such a way you will be reported. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Soca?

The article now says that after this treaty, Soca was given to Yugoslavia. In other articles (Rijeka, Treaty of Rome, 1924) it is said that Sušak (presently an eastern suburb of Rijeka) was given to Yugoslavia. Is Soca the Italian name for Sušak, or is Soca wrong? I suppose the area around the river Soča was not involved in this treaty. Markussep 19:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Istrian Littoral, map of 20th century history

Before WW1 the last Italian (dark green) village was San Giorgio di Nogaro while Cervignano del Friuli was under Austrian empire (light green) 5.90.133.183 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. It is clearly a mislabeled place on the map because, in reality, Cervignano is South-southeast of Palmanova, while this place on the map is indicated at a place southwest of Palmanova - quite possibly at the place where San Giorgio di Nogaro is located. Since that particular label adds nothing to understanding of the map, I'll see if it is possible to modify the map by merely removing the erroneous label from the map entirely. Thanks for pointing this out.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Treaty of Rapallo (1920)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 02:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Dobar dan! This is a good looking article and it looks like most things are in order, but we should fix a few things before I put the rubber stamp on it. THIS ARTICLE HAS PASSED ITS GOOD ARTICLE NOMINATION; THE FOLLOWING TABLE SERVES ONLY TO DEMONSTRATE ITS STATUS PRIOR TO PROMOTION.

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.	The articles regarding Dalmatia were largely ignored. There Italy received the city of Zadar and several islands. – What "there" refers to is unclear. Did Italy receive the city of Zadar in the Dalmatian articles? You sometimes capitalize "eastern Adriatic"; don't. Corpus Separatum separatum – This can be spelled either all lowercase or with "corpus" capitalized, but not both capitalized; cf. Corpus separatum. There are several instances of this, but I won't list them all here. the President Woodrow Wilson opposed their demands – Grammar. "The" absolutely must be removed grammatically, but if you insist on using "President", de-link it. [...] indicated he was ready to trade Italian claims in Dalmatia for British and French backing of Italian territorial demands further north, in Istria. – No comma. In addition to Prime Minister Vesnić and Foreign Minister Trumbić, the Serbian Yugoslav ambassador to Rome Vojislav Antonijević was also among the principal members of that delegation. – Right? Negotiations took place on between 9–11 November 1920, resulting in the treaty being signed on 12 November to the East east of Idrija and Postojna, to Snežnik, and then to the Kvarner Gulf just to the West west of Rijeka. economic authorisations issued to them by the kingdom Kingdom or any of its predecessor-state governments. (however, most of the Italian territorial gains were reversed in the aftermath of World War II). – No need for the parentheses. Simply rewrite as , though most of the Italian territorial gains were reversed in the aftermath of World War II. The problem of establishing the border between Italy and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes – known as the Adriatic question – and the future status of Rijeka became major points of dispute at the Paris Peace Conference. – Change the endashes to emdashes, since you've already used emdashes throughout the rest of the article (as per MOS:DASH).
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Get rid of both instances of Furthermore (as per MOS:OFCOURSE) and this passes with flying colors. I'd consider putting the name of the treaty in Serbo-Croatian and Italian, but that's not mandatory.
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.	Spot check: Batović & Kasalo 2021's link is unnavigable for me. Consider fixing, but I don't see this as a barrier to GA as per WP:AGF. Rudolph 2008 looks good. Mentions the "Adriatic question" (Croatian: jadransko pitanje), sense of "across ethnic lines" confirmed by "usklađivanje talijanskih granica mora provesti prema jasno prepoznatljivim crtama nacionalnosti" so that works for me. Kernek 1982 confirms Wilson threatened wrt the Treaty of Versailles. Pavlović 2008 is a real book, but I cannot access the pages cited so AGF pass. Knox 2007, ibid. Carteny 2015 confirms that the Treaty and death of Nicholas I lead to the end of Italian support. Graovac 2004 supports claims of Dalmatian population/demographic changes, cf. O tome najbolje govori činjenica da su ostali veći dalmatinski gradovi do 1931. godine bilježili porast broja stanovnika, posebice Split, dok je Zadar demografski nazadovao, as does high soldier-to-civilian population claims, cf. Značajnu komponentu stanovništva grada činili su vojnici koji su obuhvaćali čak 25% stanovništva. Hehn 2005 confirms the number of Italians and South Slavs affected by the territorial changes.
	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).	Residents of Fiume cheering the arrival of Gabriele D'Annunzio and his Legionari in September 1919, when Fiume had 22,488 (62% of the population) Italians in a total population of 35,839 inhabitants – It doesn't look like this was added by you, but it either needs to be sourced or completely removed. Claim that these people were cheering the arrival of D'Annunzio is found in the image origins.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Looks good.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Looks good. Spot check shows clear differentiation between source and prose.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yep.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Adds good background without going excessively into detail about the War. Same with aftermath.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Balances Italian and Yugoslav claims nicely.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable. Most of the last two dozen edits were copy-edits.
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.	Looks pretty good. "Territories promised to Italy, by the Entente [...]" is a little iffy, but it passed another GA so I think it's probably fine. Next map seems to have been created by an academic with a WP page, so that's cool. Last map is good. Photos all are clearly marked as public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Not only relevant, but interesting and helpful to understanding the topic at hand. I would consider putting "Prime ministers Giolitti and Vesnić [...]" at the top.
	7. Overall assessment.	Just fix the few errors that I pointed out and I think this thing is ready to roll. Congrats on writing a great article!

Thank you very much for reviewing the article. I intend to address your concerns within two days (maybe three). CheersTomobe03 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

ThaesOfereode Could you please look at the changes to the article. Thanks!Tomobe03 (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tomobe03: Sve u redu. Looks like everything I marked was fixed and I see no reason now not to promote to GA status. This was a wonderful read; I learned a lot. Congratulations on an excellent article! Hope to see you back at GA soon. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)