Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bratislava/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Bratislava
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Bratislava

edit

Nomination restarted (old nom) Raul654 15:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the nomination is restarted, I'm posting here old issues which remain unresolved:

MarkBA t/c/@ 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I removed map issue because a new version with states is uploaded (a better map is still needed, though). MarkBA t/c/@ 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I spotted some internal inconsistencies and significant issues that need resolving:
    • The name section gets no treatment in the lead. As it was known as Pressburg for so long, shouldn't this atleats get a blurb in the lead?
      • I've introduced anchor link in the lead. Is this enough? MarkBA t/c/@ 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really. For a city known, to the English speaking world, as Pressburg for most of its known history, perhaps mentioning the word Pressburg I thought would be appropriate. The point is, that per WP:LEAD, a lead should fully summarize the article. The fact that the article has a whole section on etymology and that the LEAD makes no mention of the etymology or of past names is the problem I was getting at. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh well, it seems that I won't avoid this one, so I've posted a short mention again, though I think it should stay at this point, I don't want to clutter lead with names. MarkBA t/c/@ 05:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The names section is confusing and internally contradictory, or atleast vague. For example, it says that the city was named for "Predslav, third son of king Svätopluk I, or the local nobleman Braslav" and later "The current name, Bratislava, had its beginnings in 1837, when Slavist scholar Pavel Jozef Šafárik reconstructed a variant of it (Břetislaw)[13] from old names derived from that of Bohemian ruler Bretislav I." I assume that Predslav, Braslav, and Bratislav are all cognates of each other; which makes it confusing. Does Pressburg derive from Predslav and Breslav (the earlier 10th century figure) and does Bratislava derive from Bretislav I, the 11th century person? If they are all varients of the same name, then don't they all derive from the earliet name? The whole section is hard to follow...
      • Well, I admit that names research is sometimes quite difficult and so it applies for multi-cultural cities like this. The main trouble is, that references which I used say sometimes something different on some point. I guess I should list them again and change as necessary, right? MarkBA t/c/@ 06:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was an ambiguous formulation. In fact, the scholar wrongly believed the name of the city was derived from the name of Bretislav I. I have made it now clear in the article. Tankred 20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The names section still seems confusing. I haven't seen much change to it rather than the addition of the word "believed" which doesn't really fix the problem. The section is poorly organized, and that leads to some of the problem. For example, it is unclear if the name "Brezalauspurc" derives from "Predslav, third son of king Svätopluk I, or the local nobleman Braslav" or if the name "Pressburg" does or if the name Bratislava does or if all three do or if none do. It is just hard to follow the history of the city's name. The actual establishment of Bratislava as the name is actually handled well, but the first few paragraphs are so hard to parse I can't make heads or tails of them.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In History: Even though Bratislava has been one of Europe's newest capital cities (since 1993), the territory has a rich history connected to many tribes and nations. This is ambiguous. Territory implies something different than a city. Does this statement refer to the city or to the Bratislava Region
    • In Geography: The city has a total area of 367.58 square kilometres (141.9 sq mi), making it the second largest city in Slovakia by area (after the township of Vysoké Tatry). reference for superlative claims and statistics? Also, this section makes no mention of its position as part of the Bratislava Region, though this is mentioned later in the article. Wouldn't that be geographically relevent?
    • In Cityscape and architecture: The cityscape of Bratislava, characterized by medieval towers and 20th-century grandiose buildings, is going through profound changes due to the construction boom at the beginning of the 21st century. This statement just hangs there without reference or any support from the subsections that follow.
      • I have expanded the cityscape section a bit, so the first sentence now summarizes the section. Tankred 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still, when expressing opinion-laden statements (such as "profound changes" and "construction boom") it is VERY important to cite where those opinions come from. The additions you made are STILL unreferenced, so it is unclear that a) these changes are profound b) there is really a construction boom. Who aside from you feels these changes are profound? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC
          • Well, looking at the city's official site, the city itself thinks there is a construction boom. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have added references to the only Slovak magazine published in English (the cited articles quote mostly the city's officials, architects, and activists) and Bratislava's website. Basically, I could not find any source saying: no, there is no construction boom in Bratislava and the changes of the cityscape are minor. So, I hope this opinion shared by all the relevant actors can stay in the article with the new appropriate references to a mainstream magazine and the city's website. Do you think the latest changes[3] were adequate or you propose rather rephrasing the text of the article? Tankred 13:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Performing arts section contains several external links in main text, needs to be removed or wikified: See WP:EL
      • I've removed external links from the text. Looks like articles have yet to be created and I don't want to flood the text with redlinks. MarkBA t/c/@ 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 3-4edlinks is hardly a flood. I would not object to 3-4 redlinks in any way...
    • The Sport section is inconsistant, unreferenced in places, and repetitive. Consider formatting this section like the Museums and galleries section, which is much better done.
      • References, well, could be surely found. I don't understand "inconsistent and repetitive". Can you clarify or perhaps give an example? From the Museums and galleries, I can think of only one thing – that I should merge some of the sentences into paragraphs (maybe like this – intro, football, ice hockey, other sports?)
        • Well, repetitive in that the Davis Cup is mentioned in several times, ice hockey is mentioned in 2 different places, etc. etc. ... In general the section lacks proper paragraph organization. For example, the last paragraph jumps from sport to sport without any sense of reason why. Also, it might be nice to see the teams from the top leagues actually named. Perhaps subsections for Football, Ice Hockey, Water Sports, and Other Sports would be appropriate, and then name major teams, events, for each... It just seems hard to follow.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks like I got to split some content from intro to the parts so the article section wouldn't be repetitive, like moving Ice Hockey Championships to the Ice Hockey paragraph, right? MarkBA t/c/@ 05:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a whole, the article could use some copyedit help, perhaps from The League.
The article is easily GA class, but seems to need some help to reach FA standards. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (I have no significant contribution to the article, I think this must be noted according to rules)
    • I must join the previous voter in saying that the name section gets bad treatment in the lead. Important names like Pressburg and Pozsony should be mentioned in parantheses (in the place where the alternative names link is now). There is no need to clutter the lead with names as "Brezalauspurc" which gets 500 google hits is hardly of equal importance to Pressburg (500 000 hits) or Pozsony (over 1 million hits).
      • The solution chosen for this article is perfectly standard and in accordance with WP:NCGN The convention says: "Once such a [Names] section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line." The name "Brezalauspurc" does not appear at all in the lead, so I am not sure if I understand the second part of your objections. Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried to say that move the most important names(Pressburg, Pozsony) to the lead while obscure names like "Brezalauspurc" can be moved to the "history of Bratislava". Basicly the previous voter asked that "Pressburg" to be in the lead and I ask for both "Pressburg and Pozsony" to be in the lead based on the importance of these names.Hobartimus 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The alternative names section (as designated by the link in the lead) is a huge mess. Its full of trivia, obscure name variants like Preslava, Braslava and others while it doesn't explain much about the importance of names.
      • The name variants are used to explain the origin of the city's modern names. Importance of the name Pressburg is already highlighted by the sentence "Pressburg was used to refer to the city by most English-speaking writers until 1919 and it is occasionally used even today." Could you elaborate on what exactly you mean by "importance of names" and suggest how we should deal with it please? Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also has a long section about Bratislava which is not an alternative name it should be discussed what is the purpose of the section. Is it alternative names, is it names history, is it names trivia, which is it? Bratislava can be easily dealt with in the main history section, or the history of Bratislava article, not to take away space from "alternative names".
      • The section is called "Names", not "Alternative Names". Again, its composition follows WP:NCGN. I think it is better to have all the names together (especially in the case of Bratislava in which they share the same origin) than to discuss one name in the History section and other names in the Names section. What do you think? Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is now called "Alternative Names" by the link in the lead, then this should be somehow fixed. It should be known what is the clear purpose of the section, I think this is one of the reason why this section can be confusing a little. Hobartimus 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "[the city] was renamed from Pressburg or Pozsony to Bratislava in March 1919" , this looks odd, you can only change the official name of the city, not what other people call it in their own language, so the sentence should read "the official name of the city was changed from [official name] to Bratislava", or "The city was renamed from [official name] to Bratislava in 1919", which was official Pressburg or Pozsony? both cannot be official at the same time.
    • Much of this names section really belongs in the history section like the part about the "free city" and other parts.
    • Weak sourcing in english was already mentioned, but the other problem is total domination of Slovak sources, which could cause major POV problems esp. in the history section. (these sources cannot be challanged by non-slovak users) So quality english sources should replace at least some of the slovak sources esp. in the history section.
      • We are struggling to get more English sources into the article, but it is not so easy to find them. I am afraid this is a general problem for all the articles about small Eastern European states. Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes and Slovak sources are still much better than no sources no question about that. Since this is an important topic a few more English sources can hopefully be found over time. Hobartimus 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it's true that English sources should be predominant, but unfortunately, I'm afraid that I can't do this kind of task overnight, and sometimes it isn't easy job to find something in English. Some source is still better than none, however, and this objection is better suited as a long-term task. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slovak sources can lead to not just POV but more serious problems as well. For example the sentence "The first permanent bridge over the Danube, Starý most, was built in 1891.[1]" This is sourced to Lacika p. 41 a Slovak language source but it's simply not true. One permanent bridge in Budapest was built in 1840s more than 40 years earlier (Lánchíd). So this "Stary most" is definitely not the first permanent bridge over the Danube. This "Lacika" where the bad information comes from is used massively throughout the article.
      • This misunderstanding was caused by an unfortunate formulation of the sentence in the article. The bridge was the first permanent bridge over the Danube in Bratislava. I have fixed this. THank you for highlighting this confusing sentence. Tankred 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are multiple other problems as well but it has the potential to became a nice article. Hobartimus 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the comment above, regardless how everyone likes that, I must state that this user has strong pro-Hungarian bias and I don't wonder that because something is Slovak, he must attack it regardless of circumstances. Regarding the names, sorry, but I think they have adequate coverage both in the lead and the Names section. Regarding the permanent bridge issue, sorry, but you're doing extreme misinterpretation. That source doesn't talk at all about first permanent over the Danube, I would lie if I'd state so, but over the Danube in Bratislava, so read the sentence carefully next time and don't do big problems from small issues. Overall, I'm very disappointed that nationalist issues must be brought even to FA reviews. MarkBA t/c/@ 14:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would appreciate if you would not attack me personally, I tried to make sure not to mix criticism of the article with criticism towards it's creators. I respect your opinion about the names you could also respect my sligthly differing opinion. The bridge sentence was already fixed (I suspect the quick work of Tankred) so in it's current state it is perfectly fine, but the sentence had a completely different meaning before. Please check the article history before accusing me with "because something is Slovak he must attack it regardless of circumstances". I see that you are deeply involved with this article but please try to keep it cool and I will do my best to do the same. Hobartimus 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I apologize for the strong reaction, but still, I have mild prejudice against some, but not all Hungarian users. OK, if this isn't going to be large-scale rewriting of Names or something old discussed, as this is a hornet's nest, I'll try to keep my head cool. MarkBA t/c/@ 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: You may want to know that for next 10 days there may be no response at all because I'll have shorter time to check and user:Tankred will be off-line. As such, if we don't respond to the objections immediately, don't mistake that with the loss of interest in improving to FA standards MarkBA t/c/@ 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It appears all of my concerns have been addressed, and after re-reading the article, I can find nothing overtly wrong with it anymore. However, I am not a cunning linguist myself (nor am I a master debater); as such I don't have a great eye for grammar and the like; if you have not already done so I would recommend getting a fresh set of eyes, perhaps from WP:LOCE, to look it over for copyediting... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm back to "normal" mode and I have more time to respond to objections. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Lacika, "Bratislava", p. 41 (Slovak)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bratislava/archive1&oldid=154767277"