Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sarajevo/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sarajevo[edit]

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary[edit]

Comprehensive indeed, but overpacked with images, often badly referenced and using strange markup. Could use inline citations, footnotes, etc., and needs some cleaning up ({{main}} instead of poor plain-text imitations). Many minor issues make a major one, so I think this article needs some considerable work to be up to date with the FA criteria and expectations. Todor→Bozhinov 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those images appear to be copyright violations, by the way. Pagrashtak 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, seems like User:Bosna 101's image contributions to the page are all blatant copyvios. He mentions Flickr and other websites as the source and claims they're {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} when the source says clearly they're copyrighted and there's no mention of Creative Commons whatsoever. They sould all be listed for deletion... another (this time quite serious) problem with the article. Todor→Bozhinov 19:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am beggining some image cleaup but I have been reverted once by the same user. I hope the cleanup will not be further reverted. Joelito (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is fantastic, but has continual problems with edits inadvertently making it worse. If the present version is deemed to be poor, then at the very least revert to Asim Led's last - brilliant - version - which was filled with images he took himself, rather than removing its much-deserved FA status. Rebecca 01:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Major reviews are not votes. Here we try to address which FA criteria an article does not meet and try to correct them. If that is not possible then the article is moved to vote on Featured articles removal. Joelito (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca, be bold! :) - FrancisTyers · 08:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, Rebecca. If there's a good, older version, that may provide the best starting place for improving the article. Sandy 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-edit required to satisfy 2a. Here are examples.
    • "According to a 1991 census, its population was 529,672; currently estimated at around 600,000." After a semicolon, the clause must function as a stand-alone sentence.
    • "Sarajevo is located close to the geometric center of the triangularly-shaped Bosnia and Herzegovina"—Spot the redundant word. And "triangularly" must be one of the ugliest words in English.
    • "Sarajevo experiences warm summers, with temperatures of 35 °C (95°F) not being uncommon,.."—"With" is a poor back-connector; the last three words are clumsy.
    • "snow is guaranteed due to the city's high altitude"—500 m is high? Minus one degree needs a minus dash or an en dash, not a hyphen.
    • "The warmest month of the year is July, when the average temperature is about 19 °C (66 °F), although August's average temperature is only a degree lower." What's "although" doing here?

This is on the express train to FARC, but please note that "keep" and "remove" declarations are appropriate only for FARCs, not here. Tony 03:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Main FA criteria concerns are prose (2a), lack of citations (2c), images and reference formatting.
Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Sandy 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Sandy 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, since nothing has been done to address the problems in the prose since review listing. Here are the differences: [[1]]. Tony 13:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Excellent article. If the current version is not sufficient, then at least revert back to Asim Led's last version and judge that before removing this deserving article from FA status. Rebecca 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, if you revert, is the older FA version referenced? Can you provide a link to the older FA version? My vote depends on references and citations, so I need to know if the potential revert would result in a better referenced article. And, would the reverted version have problems with the images? Sandy 21:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. A comprehensive article, but lacks citations and needs better referencing. Also, many of the images seem suspicious. Todor→Bozhinov 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - no inline citations and still contains images with copyright problems. Pagrashtak 01:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we leave this one on review for a little longer? Asim Led's original article ([2]) is still of excellent standard, lacking only really references and a few minor changes made in the intervening two years. I really don't think there's any need to delist when it could be back at a perfect standard with a little bit of work. Rebecca 05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's not referenced, needs some cleanup, and most of the problems with the prose that Tony mentioned seem to be present in that older version too. Although I agree it's probably better, not FA quality according to the present standards. Todor→Bozhinov 18:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in leaving this a little longer, the article is getting improved Jaranda wat's sup 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, someone's working hard to save it, so let's give him a chance. Inappropriately-licensed images are being deleted, inline citations are being added, so I'd like to wait and see how it shapes up in the end. Todor→Bozhinov 09:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been working to add inline citations and making the prose sound more professional. If anyone would like to volunteer some time I would really appreciate a copyedit to make the prose acceptable. Also, could someone please provide a link to where I can see how to format references for websites and books? --Maintain 06:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status Per Maintain's obvious commitment here and above comments, we should leave this open. Refs have jumped from zero to sixteen. I'll try and do a copy-edit myself (of course, I'm always making promises of that sort...). Marskell 13:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the article is better Jaranda wat's sup 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not finished my copy-edit, but I am a tentative keep as this is going to get there, I think. A few things, if Maintain doesn't mind:
    • I have placed a fact request in the intro. I think a ref from demography can be moved up to take care of it.
    • There are two squared area stats given (142 twice, and then 200). Perhaps one is for the city proper and the other for the metro.
    • There is a hidden note asking for a bit of expansion in the history section. Marskell 19:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be 142 km². The 200 km² was already there and I don't know what it refers to. The metro is more like 350 km². I added a bit about the wars (but most of the Balkan fighting occurred in Serbia near Belgrade). I also corrected another inline comment about the date of the founding of the city. A settlement was there for centuries but became a city in 1461. --Maintain 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still easy to find things like:
    • "Sarajevo at winter" (first caption)
    • "It is comprised of"
    • "Sarajevo experiences mild summers"—why not just "has"?
    • "The rainiest month is October when the city receives 103 mm (4.0 in) of rainfall"—"wettest" is idiomatic. Mostly redundant; try "The wettest month is October (103 mm or 4.0 in),...".
    • "The area of present day Sarajevo has a long and rich history dating to the Neolithic period"—Awkward. Try "Sarajevo has a long and rich history dating back to the Neolithic period."

These are things I've picked out at random from the top few paragraphs. If Rebecca is keen to keep, can she pitch in and help us? Tony 01:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove Work seems to have stalled: there are still sections lacking citations, sections that are stubby, random typos, and sections which seem uncomprehensive. I'll change to support if work is completed over the next few days. Have a look at the Sports and Education sections, for examples. I hope someone who knows Sarajevo will pitch in and finish polishing this article. Sandy 13:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update I see Maintain is at work on it again today, so I'll hold off on my remove. Sandy 19:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I'm still moving it along. I added a table to make the Sports section look less stubby, what do you think? --Maintain 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping Maintain would return here to comment as he seems best able to track down info. The only real absence on the page that I see is two or three sentences on the World Wars. The history doesn't seem complete without this. The rest is minor to my mind and the ce'ing has not stalled. Marskell 16:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone who is helping with the copyedits. --Maintain 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little copy-editing. Culture has a mass of red links. It's not possible to fill in a sentence for each of them, to turn them blue, is it? Tony 14:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Sarajevo/archive1&oldid=1138477702"