Talk:Smederevo Fortress/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

This article is generally pretty good, but with seven dead links—about 25% of the total—it doesn't really meet GA criterion 2. If replacement links can't be found, then it may be possible to find the old pages in an archive.

--Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, looks like there were actually more like 12 dead links scattered through there. It's crazy what two years can do to sourcing! I've replaced 8 of them with archived versions, and the other 4 appear to have been relocated -- I've found 3 so far -- but since there are no archived versions to compare, I'd like to (find someone to) do a pass through to make sure they still say the same things before I update them properly. Those 4 are mostly more minor and/or backup sources to the bigger ones that have already been fixed, though, so the key parts are at least taken care of now. I'll deal with the rest in a bit. -Bbik^★ 01:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, new question. I found archived versions after all, and also compared them to the current altered-link versions. Both appear to say the same things, but the archived versions are set up with images illustrating what the text describes, while the new versions are only the text. For example, this current page now covers both the original page with the same title and a second page which used to be a subpage, both of which also had (have, via archiving) a couple other links with additional information and images. Based on that, I would prefer to use the archived versions, but it's been long enough that I'm fuzzy on the actual policy. Since there are current links, does policy dictate that I should use those over the archived ones, even if the archived ones are clearer/more useful? Or can it go either way?

Once that's cleared up, I can run and update the references and finish the GA repairs in a matter of seconds, but until it is, I'm going to hold off on further changes. -Bbik^★ 01:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the current and archived links say the same thing, the only difference being the images, then the archived url would be fine, so long as it's marked as an archived url. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess that's the next question... What, exactly, counts as "marked"? I've been assuming simply having the url starting with 'web.archive.org/web/*/...' would make it obvious enough, but that's based as much on not knowing what else to do as anything else. Does it need an extra note or template or anything to make it even clearer? -Bbik^★ 02:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "marked" I simply meant use the archiveurl parameter instead of url, along with the archivedate parameter in the {{cite}} templates. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. In that case, all fixed. I think. It seems {{cite conference}} doesn't support the archiveurl/date parameters, since the two using that one only show the original URL, rather than the archived one, even though both parameters are there and filled in. Any idea how to code that into the template?

And for several of them, should the "original url" part show exactly what is being looked up by the archive? Or what the URL would be now? As in, the ones that are archived with a .yu domain (which no longer exists), should they show a .yu link, or a .rs link (which replaced .yu, though the link is dead either way)?

Also, reference 8 has a chapter linked, rather than the full book, so I'm not sure what to do there. I've left the archived link, for now. At worst, the link gets taken out completely and someone has to go check the book out of a library, rather than getting the single chapter online. -Bbik^★ 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter link isn't really a problem, and I can't hold a bug in the {{cite}} template against this article. I thank you for the work you've done on this Bbik; I think the lead is still a little on the short size, but I'm happy to close this reassessment as a keep now despite that. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 24 August 2009 (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.