Jump to content

Talk:Chiprovtsi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChiprovtsi has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 7, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 27, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chiprovtsi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Is this article about the town or the municipality. The lead claims it is about the town, while the rest of the article is written as if about the municipality.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  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):
    Feel free to add more images; though it is not a criteria for the GA review.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I have on comment about the town / municipality issue; possibly just rewrite the lead to state it is both. Otherwise good to go. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to state them. Arsenikk (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Could you elaborate on the way you'd prefer the lead to look like? Currently, it mentions both the town (1st sentence) and the municipality (2nd sentence). I have introduced some edits but I'm not sure if that is what your comment is addressing. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 15:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This problem occurs often in Wikipedia, because there is a town that has given name to a municipality; for instance in Norway this has been solved by creating a single article for both the town and the municipality, while in Sweden there are separate articles on each. Splitting up this article now seems like a bad idea, since it is really well written, comprehensive, and especially related to the history section, the two would be overlapping. The problem is that as a reader, it first states that the article is on the town, in my ears then mentions it is part of a municipality with the same name, before the article talks mostly about the municipality. My best suggestion is stating something along the time of "Chiprovtsi is a town and municipality ..." (i.e. making it clear that it is both). Does this seem reasonable? The changes you made are fine, but I would like the first sentence changed to clarify a little more. Arsenikk (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the first lead paragraph to address your point, which really is a valid concern. Indeed, the town–municipality separation is a problem around Wikipedia: most Bulgarian articles prefer the one article solution (which I like more), but there is a Category:Municipalities of Bulgaria with a number of places which have to be merged with the town/village article. I agree with you that splitting the article won't be a good solution. How does the current version look to you? Todor→Bozhinov 16:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; I guess I didn't at first realize the simplicity of the solution. Congratulation with a Good Article! Arsenikk (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks a lot for the review and the well-addressed comments :) Best regards, Todor→Bozhinov 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chiprovtsi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Clarification needed for "kipos (κήπος, "garden"), a word also borrowed by Serbian".

There is no word like that for "garden" in Serbian. The only words used for "garden" in Serbian are "врт"/"vrt" (proto-Slavonic, related to Latin "hortis"), "башта"/"bašta" (borrowed from Turkish), "градина"/"gradina" (lit.: enclosure, related to Germanic "garden" and to Slavonic "grad") and in Dalmatia, a variant of the latter, borrowed from Italian: "ђардин"/"đardin". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.85.75 (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment! I revisited the source; there, it is claimed the Serbo-Croatian word is ćipur, which stems from Medieval Greek kipouria. It may well be an archaic/dialectal word. The same source claims it's used in southwestern Bulgarian dialects as chupar. You're free to change the sentence to make this clearer, if you believe it isn't. — Toдor Boжinov — 16:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Chiprovtsi. 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) 01:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chiprovtsi. 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) 17:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiprovtsi&oldid=1200860696"