Wikipedia:Peer review/Zagreb Synagogue/archive1

Zagreb Synagogue

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A group of editors (Gregor B, Kebeta, Timboctou, and myself) are collaborating on this article in order to bring it up to Good Article class. However, we would like a third-party review of the article in order to direct our efforts. Any comments on prose, content, referencing, images, or anything at all would be very helpful.

Thanks, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RL0919 comments:

With the important caveats that I did not check any of the references and am not familiar enough with the subject to evaluate breadth, this article seems close to GA-worthy as it stands. The prose is generally good (some specific comments below, however) and the layout follows guidelines. Amply cited and plenty of images, which appear to all be free use. Stable, with no sign of content disputes or obvious POV problems. Citation formats look consistent, which isn't a GA requirement but is nice to see. I made a few minor edits for things like comma placement. Specific notes:

The "Design and construction" section has awkward phrasing in spots: "but did not take over Förster's early oriental motifs" (what does it mean for the building to "take over" a motif?); "receding from the street regulation line" (is 'street regulation line' a planning term, or just odd wording?).
"Zagreb's Lower town" -- is 'Lower' supposed to be capitalized?
At the end of the "19th and early 20th century" section, there is a sentence about 1933, then 1931 comes up again, which seems odd.
Jewish Community Zagreb is referred to several times in the text, but only in the last section is the initialism 'JCZ' established for it. If you're going to bother, the initialism should be set on the first use.
The last sentence has an "as of 2009" comment. Can this be updated? Similarly, the present is used for some items ("are refusing further participation") that should be converted to a past form if at all possible ("have refused" would seem to be equally true, while being less sensitive to changing conditions).
The caption for the wash-basin picture needs expansion.
Alt text for the images would be nice, but isn't a GA requirement.
I realize it is for just one work, but you might want to put in a "Works cited" section header. When I saw the one bulleted reference below all the numbered notes, it took me a minute (and a look through the footnotes) to realize how it was being used.

Overall, looking pretty good --RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB reply:

I found the above remarks very useful. Most of them have already been addressed. Let me just comment on "as of 2009": here, 2009 refers to the last known source (dated September 23, 2009) describing the progress, i.e. lack thereof. While ostensibly nothing has changed since, and - as far as I know - "as of 2010" would be equally true, to my knowledge this fact cannot be reliably sourced. For the same reason, the remark on the use of present tense is quite correct, and this has been fixed.

Once more, I'd like to thank RL0919. All further reviews or comments are more than welcome. GregorB (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah reply: I just did a thorough copy-edit of the article, adding missing links and taking out a few repetitive ones. I think the article is well-written, well-illustrated, and well-referenced, and certainly deserves GA status. Yoninah (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]