Talk:Chiprovtsi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Is this article about the town or the municipality. The lead claims it is about the town, while the rest of the article is written as if about the municipality.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * Feel free to add more images; though it is not a criteria for the GA review.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have on comment about the town / municipality issue; possibly just rewrite the lead to state it is both. Otherwise good to go. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to state them. Arsenikk (talk)  14:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Could you elaborate on the way you'd prefer the lead to look like? Currently, it mentions both the town (1st sentence) and the municipality (2nd sentence). I have introduced some edits but I'm not sure if that is what your comment is addressing. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 15:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This problem occurs often in Wikipedia, because there is a town that has given name to a municipality; for instance in Norway this has been solved by creating a single article for both the town and the municipality, while in Sweden there are separate articles on each. Splitting up this article now seems like a bad idea, since it is really well written, comprehensive, and especially related to the history section, the two would be overlapping. The problem is that as a reader, it first states that the article is on the town, in my ears then mentions it is part of a municipality with the same name, before the article talks mostly about the municipality. My best suggestion is stating something along the time of "Chiprovtsi is a town and municipality ..." (i.e. making it clear that it is both). Does this seem reasonable? The changes you made are fine, but I would like the first sentence changed to clarify a little more. Arsenikk (talk)  16:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the first lead paragraph to address your point, which really is a valid concern. Indeed, the town–municipality separation is a problem around Wikipedia: most Bulgarian articles prefer the one article solution (which I like more), but there is a Category:Municipalities of Bulgaria with a number of places which have to be merged with the town/village article. I agree with you that splitting the article won't be a good solution. How does the current version look to you? Todor→Bozhinov 16:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good; I guess I didn't at first realize the simplicity of the solution. Congratulation with a Good Article! Arsenikk (talk)  16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And thanks a lot for the review and the well-addressed comments :) Best regards, Todor→Bozhinov 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This problem occurs often in Wikipedia, because there is a town that has given name to a municipality; for instance in Norway this has been solved by creating a single article for both the town and the municipality, while in Sweden there are separate articles on each. Splitting up this article now seems like a bad idea, since it is really well written, comprehensive, and especially related to the history section, the two would be overlapping. The problem is that as a reader, it first states that the article is on the town, in my ears then mentions it is part of a municipality with the same name, before the article talks mostly about the municipality. My best suggestion is stating something along the time of "Chiprovtsi is a town and municipality ..." (i.e. making it clear that it is both). Does this seem reasonable? The changes you made are fine, but I would like the first sentence changed to clarify a little more. Arsenikk (talk)  16:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the first lead paragraph to address your point, which really is a valid concern. Indeed, the town–municipality separation is a problem around Wikipedia: most Bulgarian articles prefer the one article solution (which I like more), but there is a Category:Municipalities of Bulgaria with a number of places which have to be merged with the town/village article. I agree with you that splitting the article won't be a good solution. How does the current version look to you? Todor→Bozhinov 16:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good; I guess I didn't at first realize the simplicity of the solution. Congratulation with a Good Article! Arsenikk (talk)  16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And thanks a lot for the review and the well-addressed comments :) Best regards, Todor→Bozhinov 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)