Talk:Baščaršija/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and unlinked as no suitable target could be found.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Due to the large fire in the 19 century, today Baščaršija is twice smaller than it once was. Poor prose, rephrase - what large fire? "twice smaller"?

   On Baščaršija there are several important historic buildings, such as the Gazi Husrev-beg Mosque and sahat-kula. "On"? Why is "sahat-kula" lower case - and what is it?

   Before the arrival of the Ottomans in the largest settlement on Sarajevo field was the village square Tornik, which was located at the crossroad of the roads where today is the Alipašin's mosque. Appalling prose.

   Overall the prose is extremely poor, ungrammatical, wrong choice of words, etc. - this should never have been nominated in this shabby state.

   Lead does not summarise the article, please read WP:LEAD and the rest of the good article criteria.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   {http://wikimapia.org} is a wiki not a reliable source.

   What makes {http://www.visitsarajevo.ba/about-us.html} a reliable source?

   Much of the artcile appears to be a copy-paste or close paraphrase of {http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=auto%7Cen&u=http%3A%2F%2Fkudsevdah-ljubljana.com%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D95%3Ahistorija-sarajevske-baarije%26catid%3D49%3Azanimivosti%26Itemid%3D67}

   {http://roker.bloger.hr/post/bascarsija/1118045.aspx} is a blog, not a reliable source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Needs considerable expansion to fully to cover the subject

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):

   One image used which has correct tag and caption

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is at best a start-class article. Please expand to artcile to fully cover the subject, get it copy-edited, learn how to format inline citations using templates and the language parameter, then take to peer review before thibnking about renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)