Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgrade

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Belgrade

edit

The article failed its first nomination a few weeks ago. The issues raised were: the article was listy, poorly referenced, not written in a summary style. Since then:

  1. The lists have either been written out or moved to subpages.
  2. The article has gone from 60kb to 54kb, and the amount of relevant information has actually been increased.
  3. I discovered that the geography section was a copyright violation and rewrote it.
  4. There are now 90+ inline citations, compared to 9 before.
  5. The external links section has been thoroughly pruned (from almost 30(!) to 5).

--estavisti 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the huge majority of sources are either official webpages, or links to articles in reputable newspapers/magazines. As for why "we" didn't use Template:citeweb, that would be because I've been the only major contributor in the past few weeks, and I've never even heard of that template. :-) --estavisti 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I tried to bring this article up to standard by looking at current featured articles about cities, such as Ann Arbor, San Francisco and Sarajevo, none of which use Template:citeweb in abudance. Ann Arbor, three times, SF, four times, Sarajevo not at all. Finally, none of the sources are books, which makes the template sort of redundant. --estavisti 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well per Wikipedia:Citation templates, citeweb isn't required so I'll let it go. Personally I find it quite helpful because it easily identifies information such as author or publisher of the website page. Also I don't get your last comment about it being redundant because no books are used since this template is only for web sources. Overall I found the article meets the criteria and deserves featured status since a lot of hard work went into it. One thing I have to criticise is the article is very, or even extremely to the point. Therefore I found the flow quite rough as it was one fact after the other. - Tutmosis 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because, in general, the article is good and it also contain municipality map drawn by me (just a joke). However, somebody really should correct this awfull error which could be seen in Opera browser (603 version). PANONIAN (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that there is a problem in Opera 603. However, the article page works perfectly in IE 5 -7, Mozilla Firefox 1.5 & 2, as well as in Opera 9, which surely accounts for well over 90% of internet users. It's simply impossible to please everyone, especially as I don't have Opera 6.03 myself, so I can't test what displays well in that browser and what doesn't.--estavisti 02:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is the layout poor? The photos are also about the size of photos in Sarajevo or San Francisco. As for the two copyrighted photos, they have been replaced with alternatives. --estavisti 18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what Ronline means about layout. It's not the size that's the issue, but the placement. Move some around - some of the right, some on the left, some a little bigger, some a little smaller. Do you really need them all?--DaveOinSF 02:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the placement seems to be the problem. There also continue to be photos with copyright problems: Image:Jevreji.jpg, Image:Belgrad palac1.gif, Image:Hram sv sava.jpg, Image:BGArena1.jpg, Image:Stadion CrvenaZvezda.jpg. Overall, my general impression is that this article is not yet FA status - it doesn't have that "FA vibe".    Ronline ✉ 05:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I might be able to get a few PD photos today, and replace these ones. I really like Image:Hram sv sava.jpg though :-(--estavisti 11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - much improved over the previous FAC. I'm not a big fan of the list of Sister Cities or the Gallery, though. Surely one of those photos could be used as a main photo in the infobox in the upper right corner of the article?--DaveOinSF 02:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've used a view from the river, with Belgrade Cathedral prominent. It's a shame, we have an absolutely perfect image, which is unfortunately unsourced, and the original uploader isn't around these days. I'll move the other photos around a bit, to vary it bit. --estavisti 03:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Three concerns:
  • "Later that day tanks were deployed onto the streets in order to restore order.[24][25][26][27]" Four inline citations in a row in a FAC?! Not nice!
  • "Culture" section is under-citated.
  • I have the impression that galleries are not recommended for FAs.--Yannismarou 10:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I second Yannismarou's concerns. The pile of images at the end of the page is not good. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an image depository. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I rearranged the four citations, so that now there are two at the end of the paragraph. There's not really that much to cite for the culture section. According to WP:Citing sources, sources should be added: "if you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source." I don't any of the stuff about the bands can be disputed. You may not have heard of them, but millions of people know of those bands and their association with the city. However, I'll add some sources anyway. As for the gallery, it's gone :-) --estavisti 11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If Belgrade passes as featured article, is it possible to target some day in the future? (I am not so familiar with featured articles policy here...) I am talking as the president of Wikimedia Serbia. We can make some promotion of Wikipedia in Belgrade and Serbia if the article passes nomination. However, we need some time to organize it. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... in fact all the images from Category:Belgrade images should have their copyright checked. bogdan 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if not most then many of them have clear status. Nikola 16:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. Apart from the things I initially mentioned (and are now fixed - thanks for your response) and the possible copyright problems with the photos (I am not an expert in this domain), I also want to point out that the article has no printed sources (books, articles etc.) citated. I know this is not necessarily an obstacle for FA status, but for such a historical and important city I would like to have some verifiable printed sources written by authors who sign them and not just the official site of the city (citated c. 25 times) or all the other sites. Thanks!--Yannismarou 19:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of 94 references in the article, around 17 (18%) are on-line editions of printed sources. If you count by groups (all references from beograd.org.yu together etc.) percentage would be higher still. Nikola 22:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the people above bring up a valid concern, and it appears the article became even more clustered with images now. Can we stick to 1 per section, or 2 for a big section. Since this problem can be easily dealt with, I'll maintain my support but I would like to see some reduction happen. - Tutmosis 23:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reordered and resized the images. Does it look better now? Not counting the infobox, the twin cities' flags and coats, and "technical" sections, the article has 18 images in 24 sections. Nikola 17:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I forgot this :) The more I work on fixing the few remaining problems, the more I like the article. It is well-written, I can't think of anything that should be in it but isn't, haven't found anything incorrect in it. The images are nice and well-chosen (I agree with Bogdan about the bridges though). I hope this wouldn't count as a self-vote as I haven't worked on the article for a while, and even before, IIRC, my only bigger contribution was the Architecture section. Nikola 22:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good article, well-sourced and the image problem seems to have been cleared up. Just a small thing - I think the photo of the Gazela Bridge in the transportation section would be better replaced with a public transport photo of some sort, either of the Beovoz or the GSP system. I'd be interested to see a photo of the Beovoz :)    Ronline ✉ 23:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some good PD photos coming in from an acquaintance of mine, should be able to insert them tomorrow. Including a replacement for the horrible bridge photo. :-) --estavisti 00:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I try, I try... It'll all be worth it for the final result. --estavisti 06:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Belgrade&oldid=1138455846"