Talk:Zaprešić/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Note the difference between a hyphen (-), an endash (–) and an emdash (—). (fixed)
     • I'm not very familiar with these rules in English and the person who did the peer review fixed this (apparently incorrectly).
       • Hardly anyone knows this, except MoS-freaks and typographers. You are probably now the only one on the block.
   • It was initially a bit unclear whether there are three separate election, or one simultaneous one, but the text explained it later, and I rephrased as sentence. (fixed)
   • Ideally, accessdate dates should be written out (e.g. 14 February 2009) instead of using ISO-dates, but this is by far not a GA requirement.
     • Interesting, I didn't know that. I've used the ISO style since I started editing Wikipedia, since I found it in many articles and it was the most convenient for me.
       • I also did until a few weeks ago ;) This is mainly due to the removing of the autoformatting of dates in the templates.
   • I feel there could be somewhat more use of commas, but I tend to find that I prefer more commas than most editors; I guess it is a matter of taste. No more action needed during GA review.
   • Why does the sentence: "However, it is, as of 2009, navigable only up to Rugvica, leaving Zaprešić with no possibility of river transport." state as of 2009? Could it be better explained, i.e., when did it/will it have river transport.
     • This was intended to be a figure of speech to avoid saying "currently". However, there are plans of extending the navigability of Sava to central Zagreb, but that would not affect Zaprešić or its surroundings.
   • The USD is rather volatile these days; would it not be better (and geographically more correct) to convert the euro? Personally, when I write Norway-related aricles, I do not convert to any oth currency. People reading the article will be using a host of native currencies, and they will typically only use the indicated currency as an intermediate, thus potentially creating wrong values. Denote all currencies with their ISO-codes. (fixed)
     • I thought about suing $ instead of €, because the dollar is the most widely used currency in the English world and no English-speaking country uses euro. However, I'll remove it as I see your point. If you feel like including the euro, http://www.xe.com/ucc is a good site I've been using.
   • "Zaprešić has a rich cultural heritage" is a very vauge claim; though supported by the following remarks, it is a bit POV.
     • Rephrased.
   • I have removed some sentences that are very redundant, such as "Jelačić is not the only notable historic inhabitant of Zaprešić." They add nothing to the article, but increase reading time.
     • I intended these to help the transition between various aspects of a section, but it does indeed add a more story-like feel to the article.
       • In a non-encyclopedia it would have been great; especially the one mentioned.
   • There are a few instances of terms linked several times. (fixed)
     • I took care of it prior to listing it for GA review, but as the main contributor I know the text almost by heart, so I tend to continually skip some issues.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref 44 (the tram) is dead (404). It would be best to find a new url for it.

   I found a new URL, but I'm not sure whether it's a permalink (maybe the website periodically moves files). I'll check the link in a week or two and link to the main list of bus lines if it dies again.

   That will be fine. Stuff like this often changes all the time.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Article placed on hold. A few things to fix up, and the article will pass without any problems. Do not hesitate if you have any questions or comments. On a personal note, I wonder if I actually have been to the town. I was traveling north of Zagreb, visiting some villages on the Slovenian border, and we stopped to do some shopping in a town up there. One of the images looks familiar, but it is rather vauge, so I honestly do not know. Anyway, a very well-written article, only a few picky things (much better than the host of stuff that gets nominated by first-time nominators to GA). Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

   You were probably in Zaprešić or you might have been to Brdovec. However, Brdovec has a more village-like feel, lacking a city square and other amenities, although it has 10,000 inhabitants. Regarding the quality of the article, I have to thank User:Finetooth for the peer review which fixed many problems I had overlooked. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

   Looks great. Congratulations with a good article! Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)