Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sarajevo/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by User:Joelr31 14:40, 5 December 2008 [1].
Sarajevo edit
Review commentary edit
I nominated this article because it appears to need a little work. Citations are missing from various areas (including a few fact tags), references are often not properly formatted, and the prose is in need of a copy editor's touch. Best, epicAdam(talk) 20:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fails 1c, 2c and, in some parts, 1a. Although there are only a few {{fact}} tags lying around, I can see the opportunities for many more. Entire sections are left with none or one reference, and IMO, 44 references (almost all referenced only once) are definitely too few for an article of this size. The prose is good, but it can be better. I read the lead only, but I have already spotted some errors, e.g. should the metro population be mentioned in the first sentence? Also, there seem to be some non-obvious pipes (e.g. "assassination" to Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, or "recovering" to Constructions and reconstructions in Sarajevo after war). Admiral Norton (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image concerns:
- Image:Vucko.jpg: no fair use rationale.
- Image:SarajevoRose.jpg: no proper license --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Geography and climate. First, according to WP:CITYLIKE this is not the proper name for this section. Second, coordinates should not normally appear in prose (at least I believe so). Also, the whole section does not have a single reference! There are some stray images and a lot of work needs to be done.
- History. More inline citations are necessary (there are some paragraphs without them) and prose could use some WP:MOS fixes (improper italicizing of settlement names). There are also redundancies: "It is estimated that of the more than 12,000 people who were killed and the 50,000 who were wounded during the siege, 85% of the casualties were civilians." and a misplaced gallery.
- Government. Again, referencing. There is only one reference in four paragraphs.
- Economy. GDP? Average salary? Some major points are missing. Referencing?
- That's it for now. I might continue this review later if someone cares to address this issues (esp. referencing). Admiral Norton (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c), prose (1a), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Many of these issues highlighted by Marskell (talk · contribs) remain unaddressed. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove.agree--JackyCheung (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Nobody even tried to take care of my suggestions and there are definitely too many omissions to fix the article in a reasonable amount of time. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. No apparent work done on the article to fix noted problems. -epicAdam(talk) 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.