Talk:Radenik: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

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

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 15:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 02:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Starting:

• The infobox listing Đura Ljočić and Steva Milićević as “Editor” is misleading.
• Qualify that Das Kapital is not as we know it? (most not released)
  •  Done
• “When Marković chose the name, he considered himself a revolutionary” this prose is rather clumsy, and are we meant to infer that he changed political positions during publication? After? At all that his outlook changed?
• Can we hear more about what “the key role” is? I assume editorial control, although it may be broader or more specific.
  • but the real editor, the main contributor, the soul of the paper was Svetozar Marković How should I apply this in the article?
    • Some clarification that Ljočić was editor nominally / formally, and Marković dominating across roles in content and editorial. – RIHG
      •  Done
• Associates of the newspapers included… Associates is also vague, and many of these names, apparently not meriting redlinks only serve as jumbles of letters, especially for an English-speaking reader. What are we meant to infer from the names? If nothing, best to cut. This latter point strays from the GACR, treat this as suggestion only.
  • Are associates “contributing writers”?
    •  Done Yes.
• Can you expand on what the socialist perspective on business in Belgrade for instance was?
  • The source does not go in detail.
    • I think I agree, although perhaps business can be improved for social organizing around manufacturing/economic activity, depending on what the source best translates to?
      • I’ve misread that part. I’ve rewrote it.
• So, who’s writing the content? You say Marković criticised liberals and conservatives in Serbia, is this a column or just the thesis of the editions?
• During its entire existence, Radenik was under constant threat from the government opening sections with a signpost is valuable, but this is a bit too vague to be helpful.
  • Okay.
    • Maybe “for its entire existence, Radenik was in constant danger of being shut down by the government.”? My point may have been overstated on a reread.
      •  Done
• I raised this in another review recently, but literature in the jargon-y left wing sense ought to be substituted or defined when invoked.
  • What?
    • Literature here I understand is referencing a kind of propaganda/ideological text? in “Radenik did not publish articles about literature”
      • I’m left confused.
        • I understand literature here to refer to a type of non-fiction text writing from a left/radical left perspective, often focused on theory. If that’s the correct reading, it’s not conveyed by the one word “literature”.
• Bit of a David and Goliath tone, in part from writing primarily from the perspective of the magazine. Consider: “During its entire existence, Radenik was under constant threat from the government”, as an alternative which produces different effect: “In the period after the Paris Commune, the government was concerned with… and worked to suppress the publication of socialist voices”. The latter is not necessarily better, but writing primarily / exclusively from the first is problematic.
• The source discusses Vragolan as a journal, and you as a newspaper, although I think literary magazine would do just fine.
  •  Done
• The readership is described as “Skerlić noted that Radenik had over 1,500 subscribers at some point.”, attributed and falling under MOS:SAID. In the infobox this appears without attribution. McClellan attributes this too, “According to a socialist source”, ostensibly to cast some doubt on the claim. I see no such doubt in the article.
  •  Done
• Why however in However, in the same month, Mijatović ended up publishing an article
  •  Done
• “Now under pressure” readers, government?
  •  Done
• “At home, it portrayed itself as reformist, while abroad it was revolutionary”? in marketing/communication, or in policy approach?
  •  Done
• MOS:QUOTEPOV at militantly socialist
  •  Done
• First International would be worth introducing since you discuss it a fair amount
  •  Done
• “summer of 1871” can probably be tweaked along the lines of MOS:SEASON. Putting this out of suggestions because the swap to June will disorient an international readership.
  •  Done
• “Radenik supported equal rights for women”… to education and membership to the People’s Radical Party. Anything else? Qualification valuable here.
  • There’s not a single mention of the NRS in there so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
• We can do better than “cooperative capital”
  • That’s literally what it says.
    • Not in front of a computer right now (so disregard if necessary), but I don’t know what creating cooperative capital means here (cooperatives raising capital (consolidation)? cooperatives constructing buildings etc (literal creation), moving the share of capital into cooperative economic structures?). The distinctions there between creating cooperative production are unclear. Further, the wikilinking of cooperative capital together implies a set phrase which I don’t believe is intended. – RIHG
      • I have now read the source and unhelpfully find it vague. I think a relatively fair summary is that Radenik supported creating capital (e.g., factories, tools) that would be owned by cooperatives and having more cooperatives producing stuff. What do you think? – RIHG
• Extraordinary makes me nervous. I think with its positive connotations we should at least make an effort to replace it. Perhaps “demand for Radenik was immediate.”?
  •  Done
• “opposition liberals” This reads like the ruling party were “governing liberals”.
• What were “reactionary newspapers”?
  • Newspapers that promoted reactionary views. I’ve added a wikilink.
    • Right. Perhaps this can get some qualification given the earlier comment that there was not any “truly” opposition newspapers, and it is unclear to this point whether the government should be understood as reactionary.
• “accused Radenik of being communistic and spreading views of the First International” Was it not?
  • Well… I got confused by this when reading the book. I’ll just cut that I guess.
• You reference Serbia a few times throughout. Can we do that? I understand it was a different country, covering different territory.
  • Hm?
    • I’m too uninformed on our MOS/PAGs to press this in any way.

• Why do you give the local term for regency, link to regency where the term is unmentioned, then gloss to regency?
  • Namesništvo is the correct word here but there’s not an article on it (it should be created). I’ve wikilinked it to regency as they are similar.
• I wonder if it’s worth introducing what the Paris Commune is? Probably worth mentioning when it ended, maybe how it ended.
  •  Done
  • And it may be worthwhile mentioning that Marx and Chernyshevsky were contemporaries
    • No longer in the article.
  • Greater Serbia is mentioned a few times, a gloss would be welcome
    •  Done
• One of my scripts seems to be highlighting McClellan (1964) for ISBN / Date incompatibility. If you sourced the 978- ISBN from a modern edition / reprint, cite that directly rather than the 1964 text and use the |orig-year= parameter to add 1964.
• Radenik also had connections with… Radenik also had connections with
  •  Done
• “allegations” to my ear is personalized and can be attributed to a person, while rumors is impersonal. Do you think the first is appropriate?
  •  Done
• I’d like a bit more introduction to these figures. “Steva Milićević succeeded Ljočić as the editor-in-chief”. Should we know who this is?
  • No. I was not able to find more information about this person.
• “In 1873, Marković would return to Serbia and launch the socialist Javnost newspaper.” WP:WOULDCHUCK
  •  Done
• Can you tell me what you are trying to convey by distinguishing socialist, Marxist in Political stances?
  • I’m unsure what you mean by this.
    • “Radenik was a socialist, Marxist, and anti-establishment newspaper.” I would think that Marxist would be sufficient to cover socialism here making including both redundant, although I suspect I am missing something.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look good. I would like to see some corroboration for Danas’s claim that “The newspaper published translations of two volumes of Das Kapital”

• [8] Armed with a ChatGPT translation cross-referenced to Google Translate, I see:
  • “there was not a single truly progressive and opposition newspaper in the country”. Truly here seems to be doing the legwork, which makes it seem there were at minimum ostensible progressive / opposition newspapers, and at most there were progressive / opposition newspapers, but Skerlić didn’t consider them “truly progressive or opposition”
  • Is Skerlić a reliable source for attitudes at this time and the success of socialist publications? You attribute above but not here, and McClellan’s earlier doubt
  • A bit of CLOP: there was not a single truly progressive and opposition newspaper in the country vs there were no progressive and opposition newspapers in Serbia (article), and Radenik was well-received by the youth as well as older liberals who were dissatisfied with the namesništvo (regency) vs “The paper was well received not only among the younger generation, but also among older liberals who were dissatisfied with the rule of the Regency”.
• [11] Y

Rest of the spot-check working from this revision since I didn’t declare before:

• [17] clock This section starts “In December 1871, …” but this event took place in March 1872. Fixed easily enough with a “later”
  • But the Rakovica revolt took place in October 1871, not March 1872?
    • It did, but the quote is sourced to a March 1872 edition.
• [7b] clock Can you quote what is supporting “published on 17 May 1872” here?
• [31b] Y
• [36] clock And a quote for this one as well for “a nationalist concept that sought the creation of an irredentist Serb state”. Not seeing it in my edition either on those pages or generally.

• Images are well-captioned Y. Radenik.jpg needs a US tag, although I think that’s out of scope for GA.
• Stable Y
• Broad / summary style Y
• No OR / CLOP clock

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 12:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All should be done now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments while AFK, I’ll revisit shortly. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 23:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Back to you. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 11:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All should be done now (I think so at least). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 14 January 2026 (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.