Talk:Gjirokastër/GA1

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

Reviewer: -- Tea with toast  (talk)  05:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * ✅ Thank you for providing the new citation. I find the changes made to be appropriate.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * While there have been past concerns expressed on the talk page about article bias, I find that the article content as it is now to be balanced.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * I have some reservations about giving this the okay. I was concerned by the comments left on [my talk page], and I became even more concerned after searching through the article's history and reading the heated debates on the talk page. There appears to be too much Greek/Albanian tension here. However, it appears that most of the turmoil occurs on the talk pages – which is where debates should be held – and I am satisfied with the results of those discussions and satisfied that the article contents are not biased. Still, I will remind editors to be polite in future discussions.
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I find this article to be worth of GA status; however, knowing the article's history, I will keep an eye on it, and I will not be afraid to remove its GA status if the article becomes a battleground for any edit war in the future.-- Tea with toast  (talk)  06:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I find this article to be worth of GA status; however, knowing the article's history, I will keep an eye on it, and I will not be afraid to remove its GA status if the article becomes a battleground for any edit war in the future.-- Tea with toast  (talk)  06:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional suggestions for improvement
I have some additional suggestions for improving the article. The inclusion of these items are not necessary to achieve GA status, but probably will for feature article status.
 * I do not know if it is necessary to have "Main article: Luftëtari Gjirokastër" at the top of the Sports section. If there are other sports played in the town (which I would think there are and in which case the section would need expansion), then this can not be the main article. You could place "See also" instead, but I am not sure that is necessary since there is a link to the article within the text.
 * The lead could be stronger. I would include one more sentence about the recent history (post-1914) of the city. Through the entire test of the article (especially the history section), keep in mind the structure of your paragraphs. A paragraph should center around a single topic, if there is too much info, split it up. I took the liberty of moving 2 sentences from the second paragraph in the lead (which were mostly unrelated to the other sentences in the paragraph)and placed it into the third.
 * IPA pronunciation would be helpful

Happy editing! -- Tea with toast  (talk)  19:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)