Talk:History of Zagreb

Untitled
"It would be much easier, therefore, to take a short walk and look at Zagreb's history." this doesn't strike me as proper formating for a wiki article... but its not a big error, and the article seems well written in the formats it was written in(the citations don't look like enough thourough enough though). just thought i'd put the idea out there.--193.235.215.105 16:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical periods
I agree that the article is more "popular scientific" in its tone, but my main concern is that it doesn't follow the good practice of being divided into the actual historical periods. I'm not a historian myself, but it should really mention the Roman period (the town of Andautonia was on the edge of modern city area), detailed history of the medieval times etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerislavLopac (talk • contribs) 07:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur that separating (especially the Old Zagreb) into more specific periods would be helpful.RedJaguar05 (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

History of Architecture in Zagreb
Just talk about the different styles and buildings and says nothing about its history! For example: Who controlled the city in WWII? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.13.12 (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the architecture is thoroughly covered. This article is light on historical events in the City. More research is needed, but I don't think what we have needs to be removed.RedJaguar05 (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)