Talk:NK Maribor/GA1

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

Reviewer: &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments and discussion
Hello! This is my first Good Article review, so please have patience as I work through reviewing the article. I have some initial suggestions noted above, with details here.


 * 1a: Some specific examples of non-standard grammar I saw include:
 * "Maribor's fans are considered as the best in the country." &mdash; The as is unnecessary.
 * "(lifetime honorable season ticket holder)" (in the Famous fans list) &mdash; I think you mean "honorary".
 * "considered one of the most beautiful stadium in the world" &mdash; Stadium should be pluralized.
 * "Similarly to Olimpija," &mdash; "Similar to" is the correct usage. The adverb form of similar ("similarly") should not be followed by "to".


 * 1b, 2b, 4: Please make sure that all of the terms that might be considered peacock words are cited with a source that specifically uses that term or something very similar. Many of them are; others are not.

This article seems close to GA status, so let's see if we can get it there! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. When I went to your talk page to notify you of the review, I noticed that advised you not to cite excessively in the lead section. I don't want to give conflicting advice, but specific numbers and facts in the lead should still be cited as readers may want to verify that information. See WP:LEADCITE for specific guidelines. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hello! Thank you for your review. I have a question about the history section. How much trimming does it need? I am asking this because although the history section in the main article and the whole History of NK Maribor article are currently almost the same lenght, I have to say that the latter is in its initial phase and is far from finished. I just didnt had the time to work on it lately as there are couple of other NK Maribor related articles that I am currently editing. However, when History of NK Maribor will be completed then it will probably be divided into two separate articles (most likely focused on the Yugoslav and Slovenian period, detailed season by season) and will be a lot longer then the current main article history section.Ratipok (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you've already improved the references in the lead and fixed the specific grammar items I'd pointed out; great! As for the length of the history section, it really only seemed disproportionate when compared with the other article. It is not unreasonably long compared to the rest of this article. If History of NK Maribor hasn't had the same level of work done, then it makes sense that the other article isn't much longer.


 * Visually speaking, though, the History section does seem to be a little bit "wall of text", as it is 9 fairly large paragraphs in one big section. Perhaps using level-3 headings to break it up might help, such as "Founding", "Bribery scandal", and so on. Three or so sub-headings would be appropriate, I think.


 * As for the grammar items, the article is still somewhat peppered with minor errors. I had suggested that you get a copy edit from an uninvolved member of GOCE, but in order to save time, I can go ahead and go through it for you as I am also a GOCE member.


 * Also, a new action item for you: under 2b, I ran the checklinks script against this article and found 4 dead links, which I've tagged within the article so you can find them (the tags appear in the References section). Please try to find alternative sources for these dead links if you can.  If you do not find an alternative source, do not remove the dead links, as a dead link might come back to life or someone might find a cache copy online somewhere in the future.


 * I'll also probably have more feedback about the "peacock terms" I mentioned, once I'm done with the copyedit. Thanks again for your willingness to work with the feedback I've provided! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done with the copyedit; all of the peacock terms I saw have been sourced, so it looks like the only thing left is seeing if the dead links can be resolved. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks a lot for your contributions and help. I have removed the dead links and replaced them with good ones. The only other thing I have done was to move the "Current status" section in the history paragraph couple of lines up, since I believe that the current team and successes are the direct result from the "five year plan" of Zahovič, Milanič and Šimudnža (a trio that came to the team from 2007 onwards).Ratipok (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's it, then -- all of my concerns have been addressed, and the article meets all of the good article criteria. Congratulations! &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)