Talk:Golubac Fortress

Latest comment: 4 months ago by Hog Farm in topic GA status and sourcing concerns
Former good articleGolubac Fortress was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 10, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
August 31, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
May 18, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA status and sourcing concerns

edit

This older GA promotion is one of the articles flagged as high-risk for not meeting the modern GA criteria at WP:SWEEPS2023. My primary concern here is that a number of the sources used do not rise to the level of reliability required for GA sourcing:

  • "Hitchcock, Don (2004-12-13). "Golubac". Retrieved 2007-01-28." - personal website; unclear why this would be considered RS
  • "Vladislav cel Inalt Tepelus. "Timeline of Romanian History, 900-1472". Romanian Knowledge Page. Archived from the original on 2008-12-01. Retrieved 2007-03-23." - someone's personal research for their "persona", unclear why this would be considered a RS
  • "Harmankaya, Kaan (2002). "Die Familie Mihaloglu - Harmankaya" (in German). Archived from the original on 2017-08-19. Retrieved 2007-03-29." - family genealogical webpage, unclear how this would be reliable enough to meet the GA reliable sourcing criteria
  • NNDB has been deprecated as an unreliable source
  • "Golubac". Archived from the original on 2007-03-09. Retrieved 2007-01-28." - looks like another old personal website; again unlikely to be a reliable source.

If the sourcing is not improved, a good article reassessment will likely be necessary. Hog Farm Talk 18:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply