2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Pass, no issues.
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).
This is one where I can see disputes about the reliability/neutrality of the sources being an issue, but my (inexpert) survey shows nothing egregious. It is not required that all the sources be strictly neutral as long as the article is neutral, and reflects the state of reliable scholarship accurately. A few questions/requests for more detail:
What is the connection of Boban to the Serb National Council? Do you regard this as a neutral source?
Apparently there's no connection at all. I'd call her neutral. More significantly, her work is not used to reference any value judgments that could introduce any biased POVs.
Jankovic 1964 was written during the Yugoslav period under an autocracy. Would this have had an impact on their scholarship?
Even if it did (and I'm not saying it did), his work is used to reference four points of timeline, no value judgments capable of introducing biased POVs.
Ditto Kritzman 1970 - same question as above
And essentially the same answer as above, except his work is used to reference a single point of timeline.
A lot of the citations are contained within Yugoslavism: History of a Failed Idea - could you describe this book and its editor in a little more detail with regards to its neutrality?
The editor is a historian with his own wiki article here: Dejan Djokić. None of the chapters used as references are authored by him though and the references relying on Pavlowitchs and Russinow support points in timeline and no value judgments. What are your specific concerns regarding neutrality?
The topic covered by the book is fairly uncontroversial, basically everyone discussed by the article adopted one of two major forms of Yugoslavism. It is common interpretation that one prevailed in the first and the other in the second Yugoslavia and that both basically lived and died with the two Yugoslavias. The specific sources are selected because they cover certain aspects discussed by the article in greatest detail (as far as I can tell at least). The article gives them due weight.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Štambuk-Škalić, Marina; Matijević, Zlatko, eds. does not appear to be used for a cite. Why is it listed as a source?
Not sure. Presumably I planned to use it and then chose a different source instead. Removed now.
