Talk:Sarajevo/GA1

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

Reviewer: Plarem (talk • contribs • count ) 11:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments below for point a and b.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Please see comments below for point a, point b has been tried and tested and links to very reliable sources. This contains no original research.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See comments below on point a, point b is satisfied.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It has a fair representation of the city, without bias.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * I could see no edit warring on this page.
 * 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):
 * The images are tagged and no non-free images, See Comments below for point b.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: – Plarem (User talk contribs) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Note: Most important comments are in red.


 * 1) Picture comments
 * Alta Shopping Sarajevo outside.jpg The file beside this text, it is marked as 'Alta shopping mall...' Shouldn't it be 'Alta shopping centre...' or 'Alta shopping center...' if following American English?
 * 9th picture in Sarajevo 'chapel' is misspelt.
 * 6th picture in the same gallery, it should be St.Joseph's Cathedral instead of 'St.Joseph Cathedral'
 * First picture of Sarajevo fails the WP:CAP MoS guideline. It does not say from when is the pot and where was it found. That way it does not provide relevance to the topic. It should be " A typical Butmir vase, from around (when?) and found/excavated (where?).
 * Second picture has a grammar problem. It says: 'Stećak in front of National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina' It should say: 'A stećak in front of the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina.' See the words 'a', 'the' and the dot?
 * Fourth picture on the left, provides no explanation to why the picture is there. It says: 'The old town, "Stari Grad".' It should say: 'Some scholars think that the ancient city of Vrhbosnia was located on the site of the old town, in Bosnian called "Stari Grad".'
 * 5th picture on the right in Sarajevo says: 'Sarajevo summer night 2011'. How does that provide relevance to the topic?
 * It is in the sub-section Sarajevo, but it is a picture of Sarajevo in 2011 !
 * I propose that it should be indefinitely deleted from the article or moved into a more relevant spot.
 * The only picture on the left in Sarajevo has one detail missing, it does not say in which area in Sarajevo the picture was taken.
 * First picture on the right in Sarajevo does not say in what year the picture was taken and which graveyard in Sarajevo the was taken.
 * The first pictures on the left and on the right in Sarajevo do not say when (in what year) the picture was taken.
 * The next two pictures do not give relevance to the topic. The captions of those pictures only give the name of the most important things in the picture, not where it is (the most important feature), OR the year it was taken in.
 * Second picture in Sarajevo
 * 1) MoS issues
 * I am still looking at the picture gallery and I have found incompliance with WP:OVERLINK. It specifically says:
 * Avoid linking plain English words.
 * Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, nations, languages, religions, and common professions.
 * As a rule of thumb, link on first reference only.
 * I have written down the first one because that almost always comes up in GA Reviews, so please find that if you can before I find it...
 * Look for the second one also before I find it...
 * The third one is down there because in the picture gallery, you have Baščaršija linked four times in a row, but not the fifth time, so please get that fixed.
 * WP:PROSE –
 * In Sarajevo, 'elementaries' is spelt wrong. That is just elementary my dear.
 * Is this article written in British English or American English? It has British English words AND American English words. Please choose one type of English and stay with it.
 * In Sarajevo, Sarajevo is after Sarajevo. Please get that fixed.
 * WP:LEAD –
 * The Manual of Style/Lead section of the lead is fine, over 4 paragraphs for over 30,000 characters
 * Most of the lead is not referenced.
 * 1) References
 * Sarajevo has NO CITATIONS AT ALL. Please find reliable sources to that section.
 * I am going to add tags to where citations are needed. I am going to do it bit by bit, so please be patient.
 * 1) Other
 * Geography Also, the whole section does not have a single reference! There are some stray images and that should be fixed.
 * History. More inline citations are necessary (there are some paragraphs without them) and prose could use some WP:MOS fixes (improper italicizing of settlement names). There are also redundancies: "It is estimated that of the more than 12,000 people who were killed and the 50,000 who were wounded during the siege, 85% of the casualties were civilians." and a misplaced gallery.
 * Government. Again, referencing. There is only one reference in four paragraphs.
 * Economy. GDP? Average salary? Some major points are missing. Referencing?

 FAIL  – Ever since I started this review, no one cared about improving this article, I have left loads of recommendations (none of them done during the review) and off I go! – Plarem (User talk contribs) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)