Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zagreb/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Zagreb

I nominated this article as a featured article candidate because in my opinion it meets featured article criteria. It has recently passed the good article nomination and even so, if you ask me, it is underrated. The article has lovely pictures which describe the well written text. There are many references in the text as well. If anyone has any complaints or suggestions in order to improve the article feel free to write it down. Thank you! Jajaniseva 20:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pictures! Pictures, left, right and centre. Literally. If there is such a thing as overkill, this might be it. The sheer number of pictures wrecks havoc with the layout of the page, and completely overwhelms the article, in my opinion. Yes, they look great, but the illustrations should augment the prose, not dominate it. My suggestion would be to remove about half of them, and only keep those that really add something of value to the article. I'd be interested to hear what other editors think of this. --Plek 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you for your comment but I'm affraid I would have to disagree with you. In my opinion, these beautiful pictures make the article a little bit different and better than other articles in category Geography. Good night! Jajaniseva 01:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object, more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopedic entry. Undercited, dominated by images, the prose is very choppy, with numerous one-sentence paragraphs, and the gynormous infobox should be reduced. I recommend peer review to prepare for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object Too many images to the point that they distract from the article while contributing little information. Large sections that have no citations, including many uncited statistics. Several brief paragraphs of only a sentence or two. —ShadowHalo 05:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I'm glad you're interested in improving this article and thank you for your critics. Could you, please, specify the sections without citations as well as uncited statistics. Thank you! Jajaniseva 09:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History section contains 12 paragraphs, yet has only four references.

Population could use a few more refs to support the figures asserted.

Modern Zagreb has a paragraph of only one short sentence. You should merge that, or delete/expand the info. In fact, many sections have paragraphs of one or two sentences. This makes the prose very choppy.

Economy section has five paragraphs, yet only two refs. The general rule is at least one ref per paragraph, and more for assertions one could reasonably expect to be challenged.

High-rise buildings section has multiple red links. Create an article about them or delete the info. And why is there a "See also" section in the middle of the article? If it is about the buildings, it would be better to write a prose paragraph about the many skyscrapers of Zagreb.

Administrative section has only one ref.

City govt section: one ref.

Transport section: one ref.

Road section: only one ref, and section should be entitled "Roads", unless Zagreb has only one road.

Public Transport ~~is unreferenced~~ has one ref, but pic covers it on my monitor. I usually don't have layout issues with my pc, but this page doesn't display properly on my screen.

Air traffic: 2 red links, 2 one sentence paragraphs. Please expand and lose the red links.

Other cultural sites: completely unreferenced. Ditto Surroundings and Tourism. It's as if you gave up on adding refs towards the end of the article. Jeffpw 09:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Jeffpw seems to have done a thorough job of going through unreferenced sections. The statistics I mentioned are in the "Other cultural sites and events" section. ShadowHalo 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Mostly unreferenced. Also suffers from image overload, and I'm not sure about some of the pictures, with regards to their sources. The article should use the Infobox City template - see New York City. CloudNine 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is there a logo where the name should be in the infobox? All the musical artist articles are already trying to outdo each other with logos, but cities don't even have the excuse of having proprietary logos in the first place. And if you created it yourself, isn't it a bit misleading to have it be the very first thing people see as representing the city? (And is this a widespread practice? If so, can I be referred to the people who came to this consensus?) –Unint 05:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find the correct figures for demographics on the link provided. I'm sure they're there, I just can't find them. Can you link to the actual document that provides the figures, not just to the whole site (if you find them, in firefox you can rightclick for frame info. the url of the frame will be there. I'm sure most browers have something similar). Martijn Hoekstra 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixedMartijn Hoekstra 15:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.