Talk:Tvrđa/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When do you start? Kebeta (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to start on 22 November, but I didn't do any work on wikipedia that day (neither did I do any work yesterday). I will be starting now. Pyrotec (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've now carried out a very quick read through of the article. It appears to be well referenced and of the right standard for GA. So, I would expect it to make GA-status this time round: but that is not yet my final decision.

I will now start a detailed review section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. I note that the Lead has one unreferenced direct quotation, its a quotation so it should be citated (I will comment on this later, if it is still unreferenced when I get to that section. Pyrotec (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted quotation marks from lead. The info is cited in the body of the article. Kebeta (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's a good solution because now we aren't acknowledging that it's a direct quote and are therefore plagiarising the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't go so far, but feel free to restore quotations and add a citation. Kebeta (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the quotation marks in order to make it clear this is a direct quote. It is properly referenced in the article body, and it is at best unclear whether it really needs to be referenced twice - no problem either way, let's wait and see. GregorB (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a direct quote (regardless of the fact that it is used twice) it needs a citation, so I added it. Pyrotec (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage of the review I will mostly be highlighting "problems", if any; so, if I don't have much to say about a particular section/subsection that tends to imply that I regard it as satisfactory.

History -
- Medieval and Ottoman eras -

The second sentence of the first paragraph is a bit vague. I suggest that swopping over the order of the second and third sentences (and possibly a minor copyedit of the two sentences) would improve understanding.

Done

The second paragraph concerning the Suleiman Bridge is unclear. The bridge is described as approximately 7 kilometres long and it connected Osijek and Darda. I'm not clear, since the article fails to mention it, whether the bridge crossed the river, the river and land, or just land?

Well, the bridge was built over the river. It probably was by a small pert over the land, but this remains unclear because it was rebuilt several times. The Suleiman Bridge probably deserves it's own article, where things like this would be clarify in detail. Kebeta (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Present day -

...stopping for now. Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section needs some minor reworking. Looking back, the second subsection of the previous section, History, is Design and construction and it describes the physical decay and deliberate destruction of parts of military settlement, so I'm happy that it is reasonably complete; and as much of the section is about current usage of the military settlement there is an agruement for keeping this material separate from the History subsections.
The first paragraph looks OK, its about population in general, starting with facts about the 2001 census; but it might work better as the second paragraph.
The second paragraph appears much less organised with respect to century. It discusses post 19th century usage of the fortress, goes back to the 18th century and then returns to the 20th century; but it is coherent in respect of topic. Its referenced, so I'm happy with the individual statements themselves. Perhaps making it the first paragraph would improved the overall flow of this section?

Stopping for now to think about this section. Pyrotec (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change myself. Pyrotec (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage status -

This section looks OK.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative article on the history of Tvrđa. Pyrotec (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pyrotec for your help and a GA review. Kebeta (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]