Talk:Tvrđa/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This article has some good qualities: I am satisfied that the article is written based on hard facts and has good references to support the content. However, I find that this article has several weaknesses which prevents me from giving it an easy pass as a good article.
1. The lead section is too short and does not summarize the articles content or give enough evidence for why this subject is important. If you can, expand in greater detail about what the fort was like when it was originally built, and what it is like now. Most importantly, state the cultural significance of this place. You might want to bring that quote from the World Monument Fund into the intro. Also, that sentence about the banknotes could be put there. (That lone sentence is not sufficient for its own section). Also, do you have any idea about how big this place is? 1 km2? 10? 50?
2. The beginning sentence of the first paragraph in each subsection of the history should summarize or give an introduction to the content that follows. For example, The initial sentence "Tvrđa had street lighting as early as 1717." does not introduce the content that follows.
3. The history section is bit disorganized, specifically the "18th and 19th centuries" subsection. The "Construction of the fort" took place in the 18th century, so any sentences relating to its construction and development should be kept with that section. What I think might be best for the "18th and 19th centuries" section would be to focus on the second paragraph and expound upon the importance of the fort over time.
4. Thus far, the article consists almost entirely of the "History" section. A good article needs to be more than just a time-line of facts. I would suggest writing more about the cultural significance of the place, and for that you might look into the reasons why it is being considered a World Heritage Site.
Thank you for the work you have done thus far on the article. I wish you well in continuing to improve this article. If you need any help or suggestions as to what you can improve, you can ask someone from the Guild of Copy Editors for some assistance. Thank you again, I have enjoyed reviewing this article and am sorry that I am not able to approve it for GA. --Tea with toast (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)