Wikipedia:Peer review/Osijek/archive1

Osijek

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Listing to get feedback on article and suggestions for how and where it could be expanded. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey, coming at this completely cold knowing nothing about the subject matter and not knowing where you want to take it (GA? FA?), here are my comments...

Center vs Kilometre, you have a mix of US and Brit English, I'd stick with Brit (since it's a European article, and we're closer than the US!)
The lead could be expanded, one para for an article of this length is insufficient, look for at least two more larger paras.
Governing party = caretaker in the infobox, this could do with a footnote or something as I don't understand what that means.
There are very few references throughout, for either GA or FA this will be a big problem.
" Its name Osijek comes from the Croatian (Slavic) word "oseka" which means "ebb tide" refers to the place of the ebb tide which was suitable for settlement." this is grammatically incorrect.
"Due to its past and its history within the Habsburg Monarchy and briefly in the Ottoman Empire and also due to the presence of German and Hungarian minorities throughout its history, Osijek also has (or had) its names in other languages...." reads clumsily to me.
Origins section is a little journalistic rather than encyclopaedic in tone.
"Life was thriving here in the Middle Ages, but only traces of that life can be found today because the Turks destroyed everything they found and made a town to suit their style." - this sentence is a great example of the need for citations - the claims here need substantiation.
Try not to sandwich text between two images. The article is possibly over-illustrated at the moment, if expanded then fine but right now the images somewhat overwhelm the page.
In-line references should be converted to proper references, I'd recommend getting to know the {{cite web}} template.
The manual of style suggests numbers below ten should be written in words.
External links really needs a major trimming, no more than three or four should be necessary for this kind of article.

That's about it for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I've made a few minor changes so far and will work on rest at some stage. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]