Talk:Demographics of Croatia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 06:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes needed before final review

Hello! It has been a pleasure to review this interesting article, and I am glad to find it in such good condition. I am pleased with the prose and it looks like the references are all in order. I find there are two problems that should be addressed before I pass my review.

• The first is that the lead section is too long. Wikipedia's Manual of Style suggests 3 to 4 paragraphs for an article of this size, and generally no more than 4 paragraphs. While I like all of the items that you have included in the lead, I think the overall length may be too imposing for a general reader. As I said, I like much of what is written and so I don't want to dictate to you what to cut out, but hopefully if you read through it a few more times you might find some sentences that you can do without. Once you've finished with the changes you want to make, I'll come back and see if it is sufficient. If you need any help, see: WP:LEAD.

• I trimmed the lead down, but I also added a bit about the economic indicators. Hope I got the balance right.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• The article could really use a section on economic-type data. Items such as personal income and unemployment would be the major things to have. Other items might also include the degree of urbanization, homelessness or housing information, and the types of jobs that Croatians have.

•  Done This has now been added as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I will place the article on hold for now. Unfortunately, I may not be available very much during the coming week, but feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page and I'll get back to you when I can.--Tea with toast (話) 08:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Other areas of future development

In order for me to pass this article as meeting the Good article Criteria, you only need to take care of the above, but if you are looking to improve the article further, I have some suggestions. I think it would be great to get this article to Featured article status because currently I do not think there is a "demographics" article at FA status yet.

• The economic/personal finances is the biggest area that needs expansion. For GA status a paragraph or two would be sufficient, but FA will probably want something polished with more details.
• The Health section could be expanded. While you state that there is no disease affecting more than 3% of the population, surely there are some diseases worth mentioning. Two other health-related items I find when looking at demographic information are tuberculosis and drug/alcohol dependency. I've read about other post-soviet countries that have problems with those two items. Mental health aspects like the occurrence of depression, schizophrenia, and suicide might also be worth mentioning.

• I might add something along those lines, thanks for the tip.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• You note that the 64+ age group has a male/female ratio of 0.64/1, which is very substantial. I suspect this is the result of World War II, is there evidence to support this?

• Indeed, your suspicion might be spot on here, but right now I have not located a source which would support this theory or explain the phenomenon in some other way. I'll keep looking though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expecting you to take care of these immediately, but I think these would be good things to include in the future. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 08:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. The comments were really helpful in improving the article. Also, thank you for the ideas for further development, those might really be handy later on.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great job! I'm impressed with the changes that have been made.