User:IvoShandor/Notes on Golubac

Notes for GA on hold, Golubac fortress:


 * Feel free to comment on this page or mark things with done or not done as opposed to striking comments through. If everyone here would sign their comments with four tildes ( ~ ) it shall remain easy to see that the unsigned comments posted by the GA Reviewer were for the purposes of the GA review and its on hold status. Thanks.

By Section:

"Location" and "History"

 * ✅ As noted on the article talk page these sections should be split, so the above link will likely be defunct soon.
 * It's a rather pathetically short location section, though, and doesn't do much for breaking up the history. I'd still like to split that somehow, but I can't (and couldn't before GAC, either) figure out where/how I should do it. -Bbik 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Inline citations in the middle of sentences are odd. They should be at the end of the sentence, after the punctuation.
 * I had done that to specify what each source was citing, but it can be moved. -Bbik 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They are probably okay behind commas or other punctuation, but in the middle of the sentence they just seem way way to distracting, it causes the text to read choppily. I think it should be fine as long as the source is there, the end of the sentence should be okay, I think that is the general method in Chicago Style, MLA and APA, but I would have to drag out my volumes to make sure. : ) IvoShandor 07:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been too long since I've done all this citing stuff, and this tiny little inline superscript number thing's a novelty. I'll go fix that next time around. -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me know if I missed any. -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ❌ Make sure the entire section article gets a thorough copy edit, for instance:
 * ✅ Danube river: "Danube River. Incidentally, it's not "Golubac Fortress, is it?
 * Based on the list of forts in Serbia, the "f" is lowercase. Whether it should be uppercase or not is pretty indifferent, even sources go back and forth between the two, or they just leave it at "Golubac" and don't include "fortress" in the title at all.  Likewise, I'd left "r" lowercase because the main page is simply "Danube" so having the next word still being part of the name without being part of the link seemed a bit odd -- but that's easily fixed, if you still prefer caps. -Bbik 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that the R is capitalized on most maps, as for the other thing, with the fortress, that's fine, whatever is most common, sounds like it doesn't matter.IvoShandor 07:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Redundancies such as: was started
 * Ok, I can't copyedit this thing anymore. I keep getting through a paragraph or two, deciding they look ok, and then skimming through the rest because I nearly know it by heart, after this many times through it.  Aside from the remaining questions here, I think it might be time for you to look through it again and hopefully see what I'm not. -Bbik 05:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Need info This sentence: However, a Serbian Orthodox chapel built as part of one tower shows that it, at the least, was built by a Serbian noble
 * Seems to be a non sequitur without further explanation.
 * The best I have there, is that the different branches of the Orthodox Church are apparently distinctive enough to be able to tell that this one would have to be Serbian. Perhaps someone else (Duja?) has a bit better understanding and can clarify it better. -Bbik 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ This sentence: Between 1345 and 1355, Golubac, under the command of Castellan Toma, Voivode of Transylvania, received a visit from Serbian Tsar Stefan Dušan during a tour of the Braničevo region, which was part of Serbia.
 * This is a mouthful to read. If you get my meaning.


 * ✅ After Dušan's death: This appears to be the first reference of this person.
 * Really? Must've overlooked that.  I'll fix it. -Bbik 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The sentence just before this one had it linked already. -Bbik 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Must have skimmed right over it when I backtracked to check, sorry. IvoShandor 07:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Need info This section appears to gloss over the Ottoman possession with these statements: Golubac switched hands twice. Hungarian Timişoaran Comes Peter Perényi won it, but only had a short period of command before losing it back to the Turks.[6] Later, it returned once again to the Kingdom of Hungary.
 * This raises possible NPOV concerns as it is not really a fair representation nor does it present all significant views.
 * The rest of the section mentions little of their control of the fortress beyond the fact that they controlled it for certain periods of time.
 * To both the above: I have nothing else, or I would've included it. The specifics I have are rather scattered, so I added what I had, and am hoping someone else will be able to find more information to fill in the gaps. -Bbik 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I have access to a ton of really good scholarly databases so I could look and see what comes up, but all I could do is pass the articles on to you (either a PDF or citation) and let you work them since I have decided to review, perhaps ill-advisely so (as I seem to have offended you, which was not meant), this article. IvoShandor 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be fantastic, if you could find something. I don't have easy access to anything like that, or I would've done it a long time ago myself. (And, see below) -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ This sentence: However, Golubac's commander Voivode Jeremija wouldn't return it without a compensation of 12,000 ducats
 * One word, in this case "however" can cause POV problems. Here it implies that this is a bad thing, which is POV, check to make sure the rest of the article doesn't do this. I will mention them here if I see them. "Although" is another sneaky POV word to watch for.
 * For that one specifically, actually, I had been thinking it fit under the "Before . After, however, ." clause, which Wiki says is acceptable.  It was expected the fortress would be returned, however, that didn't actually happen.  Whether that is good or bad depends on the perspective of the one reading it.  Or at least, that's how I'm understanding it. -Bbik 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As is this sentence implies that it was a bad thing that he wouldn't turn it over without compensation, through not only the use of the word however but also through the fact that we say "he wouldn't turn it over without" (also lose all contractions not in quotations for the whole article). Why would we leave any doubt about NPOV? We could just say He turned it over for 12,000 ducats. No POV there, just the facts, let them speak for themselves. IvoShandor 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, I can't say "He turned it over for 12,000 ducats." and cite it. I've tried to be able to say that.  I really have.  It would simplify the whole thing so much.  The problem is, he wanted 12,000 ducats from Hungary, but nothing seems to say whether he got it from Ottoman instead, just that he didn't get it from Hungary.  Maybe it's supposed to be implied that it was done in spite, so he didn't end up getting the ducats, but I could just as easily argue that it's implied he gave it to the side who did pay him.  If there's a way to avoid possible NPOV and still say all that, I haven't been able to think of it. -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's cool. Well here is what I was thinking. Could say he demanded, requested, attempted to gain, etc. etc. 12,000 ducats, without ever actually saying that there was an exchange made. IvoShandor 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... How's it work like that? It just sounds so... chopppy and disjointed without "however" or I'd take it out without a second thought. -Bbik

Arbitrary section break

 * ✅ This sentence: was not pleased with the increased Hungarian influence elsewhere in Serbia, however, so 
 * "However" isn't really causing POV problems here as much as it is just causing this sentence to read badly.
 * Well, I think it's done, anyhow. Unless I inadvertently turned in into POV instead. -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ These betrayals were followed in 1428 by the Battle of Golubac
 * If this is going to be the characterization of the preceding acts, it must be cited, otherwise it is POV.
 * I'll go look up which sources said that, then, I believe there were at least two. Whatever citation(s) are listed next are probably where that was mentioned. -Bbik 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Once part of the Hungarian army had withdrawn to the far side of the river, however, the Turkish commander Sinan Bey treacherously attacked their rear,
 * Of course, it is that authors POV that it is treacherous to attack the rear of an element, to some that is good tactic. Reword.
 * Easy enough to just remove "treacherous" and have it done with, however the fact that this happened after a treaty was signed makes me think that it isn't so much POV... Unless I just don't understand the purpose of treaties. -Bbik 04:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, it isn't a misunderstanding of treaties, perhaps the nature of treaties. Treaties are political animals and subject to politics as such. We shouldn't be the judges of what is treacherous and what is not. We don't know the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the treaty, perhaps it was coerced, or not in the good interest of the involved parties. There are just way too many unknown parameters to make that judgment in this article, IMO. Now, if we come back in a month and have found that 4 out of 5 leading scholars on the topic say so, then we can add it. IvoShandor 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes more sense. I'll fix that in the next revision. -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ slaughtering: May not be the best word choice as that is a POV description of killing.
 * Wording of the source it's from. Should I just replace it with "killing" (Assuming I didn't already use that one too many times?)? -Bbik 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like deadening (just kidding), I would use killing, personally. IvoShandor 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delifing! :p (Hey, no one ever said I couldn't make up words when it's just a comment.) -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Once part of the Hungarian army had withdrawn to the far side of the river, however, the Turkish commander Sinan Bey treacherously attacked their rear,[7] capturing and slaughtering those who remained,[6] among them the Polish knight Zawisza Czarny. Sigismund was nearly caught with the rest of his army;[7] the courageous intervention of Cecília Rozgonyi is solely responsible for his rescue.
 * This is more than one sentence, a run-on.
 * I'm guessing you mean the first sentence is the run-on? Because yes, that quoted part is more than one sentence. -Bbik 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha. It was pretty late. IvoShandor 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So... do one or both of them need help, or are they ok now that the period's been noticed? -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd lose the descriptors (courageous and treacherous) and the however, but otherwise it looked good, now that I can see. : ) IvoShandor 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I left "however"; as far as I can tell, it's just implying that it was unexpected. -- The treaty was so he wouldn't have to fight, but (whatever the circumstances) in the end he did... sort of. If there's a Turkish viewpoint out there that explains they signed the treaty fully planning to make the Hungarians vulnerable (or some sort of convoluted pre-signing nullification thing like the Peace of Szeged), I'll rework that section entirely to balance the two sides. -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ During this and other fights resulting from Stefan's death, southern and eastern Serbia, including the Monastery of Daljša near Golubac, suffered heavily. It was after this, however, that Sigismund was first referred to as "our Emperor", in the memoir of a Daljšan monk, in contrast to the Turkish "pagan emperor"
 * A lot of "this" being thrown around, try to reword.
 * "It was after this fighting, however..." -- Does that work, or see what else I can come up with later? -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever you come up with that sounds good. I will look over the entire thing again when you so request, that's not to say that will be the end of the hold period or anything, it could be tomorrow, if you wanted. IvoShandor 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ yet more fighting: I too have grown weary of the death and destruction, but we mustn't yawn in class.
 * I like that comment. Does removing "yet" (done) work, or should I rephrase it more? -Bbik 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. IvoShandor 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Only link full dates, years (only link if they provide context to the article) don't usually link, individual days don't need to be linked.
 * I thought I'd followed that? I'll go find/fix whatever I messed up. -Bbik 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I saw a day linked, November 2, it was. I believe.
 * Yes, it was. I added the year. -Bbik 08:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ After a thousand Turkish cavalry were killed or taken prisoner, 24 ships were sunk, and Mihaloğlu İskender Bey, pasha of Ottoman-held Smederevo and leader of the Turkish army, had been beheaded at Golubac's gate by Jakšić, one of Kinizsi's men,[6] the Turks were forced to retreat and leave the fortress behind. Kinizsi's foray was only a raid, however, and shortly after he returned to Temes
 * Another long sentence. Watch for these, not too long, not too short. Try reading it aloud to yourself, you can detect choppiness and wordiness easily that way.

"Architecture"

 * ❌ The individual sections on the compounds all lack inline citations.
 * There are some definite assertions that probably need inlines in those sections.
 * Ok, here's the issue I had with that: I'm reluctant to cite Wikipedia itself (other language or otherwise), for obvious reasons.  However, both those articles have other sources, though they're not listed in the articles -- I went asking the main authors.  I could cite those sources instead, but I haven't seen them in any form, nor do I know what specific parts came from which sources (though I do know which parts came from each wiki.)  So... I'm at a loss what to do about that.  Suggestions? -Bbik 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at their sources? Or do you not have access? Let me know . . . IvoShandor 08:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No access. And even if I did, two of the three are in Serbian (though one is another edition of the Rastko reference, but I have no idea where it says those parts), not sure about the third. -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't find anything describing them anywhere? There has to be a source for this information, it doesn't necessarily require inline cites but you have to have a reference to meet the reliability criteria. IvoShandor 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ (Per response in Other comments, starting "Overall, I like...") I would consider combining the individual compound sections into one section titled "Compounds" or "Buildings" or something of the like.
 * I'd split it like that because I'd imagine there's more information to be had, which would make the sections longer and worth having, so it's partially an outline to show what's still needed. Combine it anyhow, or leave it as-is? -Bbik 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm . . . (thinking). IvoShandor 08:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Convert "Towers" section from a list to prose.
 * Again, I need suggestions. It's already repetitive, how can I convert it to prose while keeping it clear what tower is being discussed and without it all being "Tower one is this... The second tower is that... Tower number 3 has this..."? -Bbik 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to the descriptors you noted above, there are always the direction (N, E, S, W and their derivatives) as well as the orientation of the towers (to the buildings, or each other) which can be used to describe them to avoid redundancy and repetitiveness. Lists don't help make an article particularly "well written," well listed, maybe. ; ) IvoShandor 08:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, forget the key, if you do anything to specify the map it should be on the image page, which isn't going to matter for GA and maybe I will do what I have in mind after this whole thing is over with and see what you think. But I would highly consider adding a compass to the map, a free use one should be pretty easy to drop in there even if you only have MS Paint. With that addition you can use the directions more in text and everyone will be able to just look and see what you are talking about. Aha! This seemed like an especially brilliant idea to me . . . : ) I just applaud myself, no need for you all to stand. IvoShandor 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe :) And a bunch of (obvious, might I add) ideas which I (equally obviously) hadn't thought of at all.  Isn't it fun being braindead!  Also, go ahead and do whatever it is with the map, because I'm too confused about what you're thinking to do it myself.  I'll do something about the compass rose, though, once I deal with the bigger text issues. -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. So, that map does actually have a directional arrow already, it's just not very obvious where it is.  Should it be replaced entirely with a slightly bigger one (and put somewhere else so it fits, too), or just moved somewhere better?  Either one works, I have a rose ready to go, but it doesn't quite fit with the style of the rest of the map, so...  Aesthetically, I'd rather stick to moving the arrow, functionally, I have no opinion. -Bbik 01:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not great, still needs some cleanup and suchlike, but not a list anymore, at any rate. I'll go back through it in a bit, chores need doing now. -Bbik 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"In recent years"

 * ✅ As noted on the talk page this section should be split up and merged, so the link above may be defunct.
 * Golubac is now a highly visited site. Two key reasons are the major road that passes through it, and its proximity to Lepenski Vir, making the two locales a touristic whole.
 * ❌ Needs citation.
 * See above comment about citing Wikipedia. -Bbik 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Be specific, highly is highly subjective.
 * Source (translation) is no more specific; how's something more like "Golubac now attracts more visitors..."? -Bbik 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the 21st century (or 20th) Gobulac became a tourist attraction? Or something like that? IvoShandor 07:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it may well have been a tourist attraction before that (in fact, I believe at least one of the Google books might've been writing about it early enough to confirm that), just not a popular one. Though that's general enough it could be ok.  Or... "In the 21st/20th century, Golubac gained popularity as a tourist attraction." maybe?  Or's that back into the realm of too specific to still be general, since it could mean anything from only 1 person a year to now 50, to 5 million a year, now 5 billion (unrealistic, just an example)? -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends on what the sources say. Do they imply its popularity has increased? That's all we need to say "gained popularity", really, in my opinion. IvoShandor 08:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Golubac is a highly visited site today, for several reasons: a major road goes through it, and it's close to Lepenski Vir, so the two locales make a touristic whole. is the exact (translated) sentence. However, the fact that the road was only built after the war, and its overgrown-ness a few years back could be implying that it wasn't much visited then, because it was both out of the way and no more than a pretty picture from a distance.  What it actually sounds like (OR alert, combining bits from everywhere) is that it was a popular photo op, perhaps short stopping point, for river tours, but now people actually drive there, too.  I'm going to change it to the gained popularity bit and call it done, unless I hear otherwise. -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Between 1964-72, a hydroelectric dam was built in the Iron Gate gorge, significantly elevating the river's water level. As a result, the lower parts of the fortress are now flooded.[6]
 * This seems to contradict the idea that it is a highly visited site as the sentence about restoration mentions only plant removal and nothing about what happened to the water, indeed since it says the place is now flooded the paragraph that follows: From the beginning of the 21st century, much of the fort has been overgrown, making most of the upper parts inaccessible. During the spring of 2005, a public project to restore the fort was started. Most of the plants were removed and certain parts, like the fountain in the moat raised in honor of knight Zawisza Czarny, were repaired. The walls, towers and stone stairs are in decent condition, but the wooden floors and steps have rotted out, making most of the upper floors impassable.: Is rendered non sensical because it implies that it is only the lower floors that are visited (which according to the above are currently flooded). See the confusion, perhaps specifying what is flooded and what was repaired would help.
 * I guess that was a bad assumption on my part. It's on a hill, so parts, as in the structures lower on the slope, are flooded, as compared to the not-flooded higher parts (moving up the slope), and the towers have/had multiple floors, but only the ground levels are accessible because of the rotted wood. -Bbik 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any better now? It sounds bad, though... -Bbik 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will check this out. IvoShandor 07:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Need info What parts that are described in the architecture section are open to the public? (Again, consider a significance section, see below).
 * Need info Who restored it? Why? How much did it cost?
 * For both the above, and tying in to the next one up, too: No idea.  That is all the information I've been able to find, and it makes it rather hard to make anything clearer, especially without making it all guesswork -- Based on the map, it seems like the moat, tower ten, and maybe a few other outlying parts are what was flooded, but that's not specifically said anywhere.  Based on the pictures on Commons, it seems like the entire not flooded section of the fortress is traversable, if not easily, so I'm not sure about that, either. -Bbik 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well I wouldn't want you to speculate. It would just be nice to have some more info is all, probably not entirely necessary. IvoShandor 07:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Notes" and "References"

 * ✅ As noted this section should be split, so the above link may be defunct.
 * ❌ Find English equivalents and check the (below) mentioned English books.
 * ✅ Several of the sources may not meet the criteria at WP:RS or WP:A
 * The ones that raise red flags in my mind are listed below:
 * Reference 1 : No sources, no information on affiliation, seems unreliable.
 * If you just take the root, it redirects to a .gov site. Likewise, this part redirects to National Tourist Organization of Serbia.  I had checked that at the time, which is the only reason I used the reference at all -- Do those two not make it more reliable? -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. IvoShandor 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference 2 : I don't know if travel agency articles would be considered reliable for a historical topic, especially those without sources.
 * All it was used for is the location and a "general consensus" on the construction date. I should hope a travel agency would be able to tell you the right location of a place they'd (presumably) want you to go.  But if it's that big a deal, it can just be removed, no real loss... -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. IvoShandor 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference 3 : Seriously? Don's Maps? You can't get much more Joe Blow than that.
 * Despite the fact that it has:
 * References:
 * A. Deroko, The City of Golubac, Starinar, n.s. II, (Belgrade 1951) 139-149; N. Katanic, The Medieval City of Golubac, Collection of Documents Concerning the Protection of Monuments of Culture (Belgrade 1970/71) 113-131; G. Simic, The City of Golubac, Starinar, n.s. (Belgrade 1982-1983) 71-84, Caslav Jordovic
 * ...at the end? It is citing much the same stuff as other references, too, differences are mostly in how specific it (or others) gets. -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it has those refs I don't see why we couldn't just use those, check libraries. IvoShandor 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Much the same as the databases, no easy access. There's no way my small-town library would have it, transportation is an issue, and I have a very strong suspicion they're all in Serbian, with translated titles for the website.  I believe (haven't actually checked) the first one may even be the same as one of the others that have turned up recently via people translating stuff for me, or at the very least, it's the same author as several. -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can assist. IvoShandor 09:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * References 4-7 and 14 should be replaced with English language equivalents. In addition:
 * Reference 4 : appears to be a poorly constructed website, bringing its reliability into question.
 * Again, I went poking through before using it at all, and while it's possible only the pictures are from the noted Kulturna riznica Srbije / The Cultural Treasury of Serbia, Novinsko-izdavacki centar vojska, Beograd, 1996, I find it more likely the whole thing is based on that. Also, does this make it any better, imperfect design or otherwise? -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference 6 : doesn't seem to cite its sources.
 * There are several citations within the prose, actually, though admittedly I can't find a list of citations. Whether it's there or not, I'm not certain -- I haven't gone clicking every last link and my imperfect German means I don't know what a few of them are, and I have better things to do than spend that much time when what it does say either agrees exactly with other sources, or adds a few more specifics to what was already mentioned elsewhere. -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, this wouldn't be as much of a problem if we had some English sources, no big deal though. IvoShandor 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for peace of mind (and because I hadn't originally checked everything quite so thoroughly for this one), the names I was talking about, and what I can find on each of them: -Bbik 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dr. Theodor N. Trâpcea -- He turns up a bunch, seems reliable based on where he turns up, but I can't read any of it.
 * Dieter Maier -- Perhaps this is the book meant: Dieter Maier, Die Donau. Utting 2001, ISBN 3-89555-012-4 ? It seems to be referenced enough places, and often in relation to Golubac, too, though again it's a common name so could be just about anyone.
 * Franz Engelmann -- Well, it comes up in relation to the right things as well, but there are so many different possible ones, it's far too common a name.
 * Karl Kraushaar -- He wrote for various regional (at least one was political) newspapers; he and the papers are plenty google-able and mentioned by various government sites or their derivatives, rather than just random pages.
 * Reference 7 : doesn't appear to cite its sources either and looks as if its sole purpose may be to sell a book, which brings into question its reliability . On second thought maybe not. Not sure about this one, better to replace if it is questionable.
 * If even Rastko isn't reliable, I give up. Between what I've found about it here and elsewhere, my poking around it both related to this article and prior to that, and myriad other things agreeing with its reliability... I'm at a loss how to say anything more. -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is Rastko? the domain www.rastko.org doesn't go anywhere. IvoShandor 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's www.rastko.org.yu, Project Rastko. It's wiki-linked in the reference, so I assumed you'd seen that, or I would've linked it earlier, my mistake.  That should explain it, at any rate. -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger that. I didn't actually go to that link, my bad. This is fine. Don't give up. IvoShandor 09:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference 8 : Citation says it is a reprint of an encyclopedia, is there such citation on the webpage in question, if there is the citation should link to it.
 * I'm confused. Is Source: Encyclopaedia Humana Hungarica 03. CD-ROM, Encyclopaedia Humana Association, Budapest, 1997. what you're looking for?  That's on the bottom of this page, which is where you go if you click the left arrow at the top of the reference page. -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That works, I couldn't find it, but I don't click around much on sources, shouldn't have to. IvoShandor 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Should I link it somewhere, somehow, in the reference, so it's easier for others? Where?  How (especially since it's just a line at the bottom, not anything directly linkable)? -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could link it with a parenthetical note (bottom of page), maybe? IvoShandor 09:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like now? -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference 9 ( (PDF)): Solid one here, consider a PDF notice in the citation, like I have above.
 * The symbol doesn't cut it? Easily fixed, at any rate. -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe not so easily fixed. How do I get it to go after the chapter/link without messing up either the chapter title, or the link?  Or do I just add it to the very end of the whole thing? -Bbik 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out, I believe it is generally preferred to have the link too. IvoShandor 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for the sake of including the link, it's there... But it's after the book title, rather than the chapter link. I still can't figure out how to get it after the link without breaking all kinds of code instead. -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference 10 : No sources given, poorly designed web site, brings reliability into question
 * The bulk of the following timeline was excerpted from Chronological History of Romania (Editura Enciclopedica Roma^na, Bucharest, 1972) with a few snippets added from The People's Chronology: A Year-by-Year Record of Human Events from Prehistory to the Present (James Trager (Ed); Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1979). No sources given?  Then what's that? -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why these all have to be web sources if they are based on the book, but okay. IvoShandor 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Explained a few references above, and some more a few sections up. I use what I can. -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is frowned upon to link book citations to Google Books but in general I would say not to unless it provides full text, otherwise it seems to much like an advertisement.
 * A few pages here and there are omitted, but otherwise yes, they seem to be full texts. Also, how is it an advertisement if the book is already there?  Hardly a selling point to say "Hey, here's the book, you can read it for free, now come spend money to buy it anyhow!" -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all books are in their entirety on Google Books, which is what I meant. I am trying to help here. If you don't want it just say so. IvoShandor 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood that part. I did figure it out after a bit of curious poking around, but by then you were already doing your responding.  At any rate, I do want the help (even aside from the fact that I quite simply can't see anything, right or wrong, with the article anymore after looking at it so much), and I apologize.  Between not expecting there to be quite so many things needing fixing, and then scrolling through to see that all but one (two?) of my references (Including Rastko, which is one of the most certain ones, though if you were trying the wrong link, that makes sense now.) were being questioned...  I fully understand that you couldn't possibly have known, but I checked all that before I used/cited any of them (why it was so easy to find all those links, etc), and I always do, because I know there is way too much nonsense out there.  In fact, for the majority of them, I had to check that anyhow, just to fill out the citation templates.  So... after a long day, I was a bit annoyed about that, and it was apparently the proverbial last straw.  I really didn't mean it to sound harsh or ungrateful.  Between misunderstanding and badly phrased confusion (I honestly don't understand how it'd be advertising.), I guess it came out wrong. -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of the consensus on Google Books, I just know that linking to search results is generally frowned upon. As for the other stuff, it's no big deal, I get a wee might sensitive sometimes. I really do want to see this article become a GA which is why I am so intensly involved, as I usually just review thoroughly and leave it, you even get your own subpage : ). Anyway, a second look at the refs never hurts, I didn't mean to be so critical, just want to help as much as I can without interfering and becoming a non neutral reviewer. IvoShandor 09:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they're not technically search results anymore... Search results give a little icon and a snippet of info (much like image searches), while the links are to the (Google-run) "home pages" for the specific books.  (Yeah, I went checking that out a while ago, too.)  I'll stop nit-picking now and Oooo at the special attention instead. :)  And critical's ok -- I asked for it by nominating it, anyhow -- I just shouldn't have been dealing with it then, apparently, since between one thing and another I ended up so defensive like that.  And hey, it's helped!  There's the PDF thing there now (sort of), and the link to the bottom-of-page source that I wasn't sure what to do with when I was filling out the citation template has been added, and all the various other stuff. -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference 14: : poorly designed site that doesn't seem to have any source citation, brings into question its reliability.
 * Object: Ref 14 (Mihaloglu) (ref-list thoroughly cross-linked on the site). Duja ► 15:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the information in question, the specific reference cited is:
 * JORGA, Nicolae - Die Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches nach Quellen dargestellte von N. Jorga, Band 2. bis 1538, Primus Verlag Darmstadt 1997 -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider addressing these concerns. IvoShandor 11:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the foreign language references, I know I've seen in several places that those are preferable to no citation, and while English equivalents are better still, good luck finding them. I sure couldn't, or I wouldn't have used all those instead. -Bbik 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ref 14 is probably okay, I just didn't see the sources. The foreign language sites are okay, I didn't mean to imply that they weren't. It would just be much better if the information could be found somewhere in English, are there any books that have been translated? Have you checked out databases like Proquest or JSTOR, etc. While foreign language sites are okay, they are pretty much useless for verifying anything for the average reader. IvoShandor 07:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood (And agreed, finding info in the first place has been a nightmare -- that's not even all of it.), but see the various bits above. -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I know how obscure this topic is, I will consider that when it comes time to take it off hold and I will see what I can find, mostly I can get any articles I find as PDFs, which I could email to you. Provided you were comfortable giving me an email or I could give you mine, but we shouldn't do it here. I will enable email feature on the wiki but I dont know how that works really. IvoShandor 09:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is part of the reason I decided to go ahead and review this article (which I almost did when I first noticed its nomination). I felt like I would give it a fair review and didn't want someone else muckin' it all up. ; ) IvoShandor 09:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * E-mail -- done. Let me know if it didn't work or something. -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Compacted list of sources' sources, for easier reference, to be checked if possible:
 * A. Deroko, The City of Golubac, Starinar, n.s. II, (Belgrade 1951) 139-149 (probably Serbian)
 * N. Katanic, The Medieval City of Golubac, Collection of Documents Concerning the Protection of Monuments of Culture (Belgrade 1970/71) 113-131 (probably Serbian)
 * G. Simic, The City of Golubac, Starinar, n.s. (Belgrade 1982-1983) 71-84, Caslav Jordovic (probably Serbian)
 * Kulturna riznica Srbije / The Cultural Treasury of Serbia, Novinsko-izdavacki centar vojska, Beograd, 1996 (Serbian)
 * Encyclopaedia Humana Hungarica 03. CD-ROM, Encyclopaedia Humana Association, Budapest, 1997 (probably Hungarian)
 * Chronological History of Romania (Editura Enciclopedica Roma^na, Bucharest, 1972) (probably Romanian)
 * The People's Chronology: A Year-by-Year Record of Human Events from Prehistory to the Present (James Trager (Ed); Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1979)
 * JORGA, Nicolae - Die Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches nach Quellen dargestellte von N. Jorga, Band 2. bis 1538, Primus Verlag Darmstadt 1997 (German)
 * W. B. Forster Bovill [1908] (2006-03-27). Hungary and the Hungarians. London: Methuen & Co., 293. (GoogleBook)
 * Esterházy, Péter [1999]. The Glance of Countess Hahn-Hahn (Down the Danube), Translated by Richard Aczel, Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 225. ISBN 0-810-11760-6. (GoogleBook)
 * Dieter Maier, Die Donau. Utting 2001, ISBN 3-89555-012-4 (German)

Images

 * ✅Maybe done? The map is very cool. But it appears that you are referencing it in text, which is cool (I assume that's what the parentheticals are in the architecture section). Without a key the references are ambiguous at best. Think about providing a more succinct description on the image page of the symbols used in the map, it would really help, a simple key added to the map itself might not hurt either.
 * I'm confused, how are the references ambiguous without a key? I can understand that the other, unreferenced parts are (I'm not sure how much I can do about that and/or about adding a key, I'll see.), but the parts I explained are ambiguous?  As for a "succinct description on the image page of the symbols used" do you mean just noting that the letters are for the compounds, the numbers are towers, and the roman numerals are other structures, or...? -Bbik 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more specifically, which markings indicate a tower and which ones indicate compounds, yeah. It's just not clear at first glance because there is so much going on in the map. I really like it though. Maybe a quick sentence noting that you are referencing the map in text and explaining the above is all that is really needed. IvoShandor 07:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick sentence in the map caption, or at the start of the text, that the map is referenced in the text? -Bbik 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See new comment in architecture. IvoShandor 09:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you still wanted some sort of note or not, so I added one to the caption. Let me know. -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is fine, and can be tweaked later if need be. IvoShandor 05:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

 * ✅ Expand the lead to conform to WP:LEAD.
 * What more should be there? A mid-length article gets 2-3 paragraphs, which it has, so...? -Bbik 04:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A lead should represent a good summary of the article. The summary of the history section isn't all that great in the lead as is. There is no mention of architecture, maybe it doesn't say that at WP:LEAD, it has been awhile since I read it, anyway, that's more what I meant. That, of course, will also increase its length a bit. IvoShandor 09:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I thought it did, couldn't remember though. IvoShandor 09:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was so hoping you didn't have an answer to that! Guess I'll have to come up with some way to fix it up and summarize architecture after all.  I'll work on that. -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added a little (And also removed a little...), and don't know what more could/should be put there for the history summary, without getting into all kinds of specifics. The architecture summary... needs help.  There's no better way to put it.  And I can't figure out how to fix/expand/mesh it with the rest at all, and it doesn't help any that the entire section is specifics, really, so doesn't lend itself to summarizing in the first place. -Bbik 05:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good just combine one sentence paragraph with the previous one. IvoShandor 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ A significance section wouldn't hurt, the information about restoration would go well there. As well as descriptions about the overall historical significance, are there others like it surviving? What makes it unique? etc.
 * Restoration info -- I have no more. Others like it -- in more than the single tower that's similar to Smederevo fortress?  I don't know, I would imagine there must be at least a few, but I wouldn't even know where to start looking for that, since nothing was specifically mentioned anywhere.  Unique -- Well, there's the (apparently rare case of) well-preserved, the number of times it changed hands, perhaps a couple other things mentioned through the article, but I don't know that it's even remotely enough (at least, at the moment) to warrant its own section.  Especially if the compounds don't warrant sections, because they're longer than any significance section would be. -Bbik 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Created, but it's not very good, and essentially just a repeat of what's already said elsewhere. Sources that actually say anything about this would be incredibly helpful, even I can only BS so far (and not go into the realm of OR).  Should it be moved somewhere else, or leave it at the end? -Bbik 05:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ You could probably lose the "external links" altogether, unless there are some better links to put up because the one that is there doesn't really add all that much to the article and looks almost like link spam, especially with the Commons gallery linked in the article.
 * Ok. I put that there because it has a lot more pictures than Commons, but I can delete it. -Bbik 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Either stub or lose the red links.
 * Ok, I've created basic stubs on a few, removed a few others, and would just assume leave the rest, if possible. Babakaj and Peace of Szeged I plan to create when I have a bit more time, I might try doing something for Kočina Krajina (And even if I don't, I definitely feel that one should stay linked until it is created -- A (short) period of Serbian history similar to the First Serbian Uprising and all the other various stages, and it somehow doesn't have even a stub of a page.  It at least deserves a link.).  I might try and make some sense out of the stuff I've found about Iskender to create a stub about him as well, but I don't plan on touching Sinan Bey, there are way too many similar names and I already had a hard enough time determining that there isn't yet a link about him, much less actually being able to tell if information I find about that name is about the right person or not.  Considering how few pages, even stubs, there are for mid-high level Ottoman people, I'd just assume leave that one linked as well, and hopefully someone who's better at all this will be able to fix that problem, whether through seeing the red link here, or by doing it separately, or whatever.  As for the monastery...  Eh.  It seems all kinds of other religious places get links, so might as well let this one have one as well.  I'll see what I can find about it (again, time dependent, things are starting to get busy around here) and create a stub if there's anything worthwhile, otherwise, let me know if it's really a problem leaving it red and I'll delink it.  I'm figuring 6 red links remaining, and no more than one per paragraph with at least a few that should be turning blue soonish isn't all that big a deal.  Let me know if I'm thinking wrong. -Bbik 07:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good here, it isn't a big deal now, you're right. : ) IvoShandor 12:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Side topic As for question 6 on the talk page, it looks mostly like a semantics argument, it probably doesn't matter what you call it, as long as it's described correctly. The exact date would be nice, but if it's not available it's okay, broad in coverage doesn't mean you need every single detail.


 * Overall, I like this structure that you have now. Though it would seem that should the history section get any longer a main article History of Golubac fortress may be called for. Your above explanation for the rationale about the compound sections is good enough for me. The location section is short, yes, but there is probably something additional to be added one day, and the topic warrants a section. If you can get a paragraph out of significance (even if it's short) add it, otherwise don't worry about it for now. To be broad an article need not include every detail (as I noted above) but should at least touch on all major aspects of a topic and when talking about historical properties (especially extant ones) that should include some statement of its overall significance (locally, regionally whatever you have). This is all just my personal opinion, formed with the idea of improving the encyclopedia. : ) IvoShandor 09:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just concerned that if the history section gets summarized/moved without more also being added to other sections, it will kill the rest of the article, since the history section is kind of the bulk of the text. I'll see what I can do about a significance section, though, and maybe that'll help to even out the history:rest of article ratio. -Bbik 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was just pointing it out for future ref, no need to worry on that right now. IvoShandor 12:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

 * Lead: Just combine the one sentence paragraph and its good.
 * Architecture: This section has to have a source or reference of some kind, and you're right the Wiki won't cut it. Without a source it isn't verifiable and could be construed as OR.
 * Copy edit:Most articles always continually need this, I will scan it for any glaring errors, but this is probably going to be okay.

You're on the verge here I think. The source thing for the architecture section is impt though. It's really all that's holding it up now. IvoShandor 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)