Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Golubac fortress
I'm mostly looking for a more specific assessment, since I'm guessing it's at least GA by now. How close is it to A or FA? Also, any suggestions people can offer would be great. There are some questions on the talk page that, once answered, can improve the article a bit more, but beyond that, I'm at a loss for what else it needs (Or, more precisely, having trouble finding more information to fill in the gaps). Thanks for any help! -Bbik 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I recently discovered this article and I think it is great. I would also like to help in getting this article to FA status, but not sure what needs to be done. // laughing man 00:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Woohoo! Give me a few weeks and I should finally have time so I can help again, too.
- It needs a bit of balancing out (I could find very few details of what happened to the fortress while it was in the hands of the Turks, though there's quite a bit while it was held by Serbia/Hungary.) and details of its status today, mostly. And it wouldn't hurt to have another person or several run through and copyedit/rephrase, either -- I'd like to think I write well, but I don't know about "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." If you can find sources in English (I haven't been able to), or a second source in whatever language for the early part of the history (to double up or replace the dejan one, its reliability is questionable, but it's all I could find to cover that time period), that would be great as well. There were also a bunch of issues that were brought up during the GAC (here) that could still use some work, I don't remember off-hand what ones they were specifically. And if you care to browse through my Golubac fortress-specific archives to see if there's anything I missed, be my guest, but good luck following it all, it's a bit scattered here there and everywhere.
- And as general helpers, only loosely tied to the article, if you can find anything about the Turkish people to create articles for them (since I just de-linked them for GA, but that's not really a solution), that would be nice, and the same for the red links that are still there. I have information for a couple of them already, I just haven't had the time to write them up, so if you do go writing new ones, check and see what I have first (I'll look through and list what I have in a few days, hopefully.) so it doesn't get overlapped as much. Oh, and Koča's Krajina (I think that's what his name was...), has that been written yet? That one strikes me as a rather important article to have, being part of the main history of Serbia, even if it was short-lived. That one would involve checking for various links used everywhere else, too, since without a ready-made article people have been red-linking whatever name they feel like calling it.
- Well, that should be a start! -Bbik 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- As far as the research/expansion, I don't think I have the time available at the moment for that, but if there is any 'busy work' that needs to be done, for example making sure article follows certain style guidelines, or citing references in a certain way, I'll can help there. It seems you have already progressed so far already, and are close to FA status if not there already. In any case, let me know if you think of something along these lines, and I'm sorry if I got your hopes up that I would be able to contribute in a large scale. // laughing man 14:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, I have enough other stuff I should finish around here anyhow. The only minor things I can think of are to perhaps work on the intro a bit (It's much improved from what it was, but it's still fairly history-focused and abrupt.), or come up with some way to split the history into sub-sections. I've had all kinds of ideas there, but none that make much sense, or if they do, they don't actually split it much (By key events, such as a section "Battle of Golubac", but that's only one paragraph, and what about the rest after? By who's holding the fortress, but that switches at least once nearly every paragraph, and would be stupid. Or three sections, "Ancient history", "Middle Ages", "Modern era" or something similar, but all that does is cut a short paragraph off each end, and stil leaves the bulk in a single section...). I think I have the basic layout/wikification/whatever other stylistic things covered, and the references are all standardized and in {{cite xx}} templates, so there's not really anything as mindless as that to be done. As far as I can tell, it really would be the expansion issues that would hold it back from FA, and I don't think there's much (if any) more I can do for that, unfortunately. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though! -Bbik 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- As far as the research/expansion, I don't think I have the time available at the moment for that, but if there is any 'busy work' that needs to be done, for example making sure article follows certain style guidelines, or citing references in a certain way, I'll can help there. It seems you have already progressed so far already, and are close to FA status if not there already. In any case, let me know if you think of something along these lines, and I'm sorry if I got your hopes up that I would be able to contribute in a large scale. // laughing man 14:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)