Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Badnjak/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 27 September 2009.

Badnjak

 * Nominator(s): VVVladimir (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think that it is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched regarding its subject. It went successfully through GA review, after which it was significantly expanded and extensively copy-edited. It is neutral, duly cited throughout, and illustrated. I also hope that this nomination will receive a constructive criticism, through which the article could be even more improved. Thanks, VVVladimir (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I copydited the article a little before Malleus got stuck into it. Buffed up nicely and fulfils prose and comprehensivness criteria. Can't think what else needs doing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Image review: The alt texts could do with being beefed up a bit. Copyright status of images is fine. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Beefed up. VVVladimir (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Refs check: the links to rastko.org.rs are dead. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have as yet no information on what has happened with the Project Rastko site. It worked normal a couple of days ago, and now none of its pages can be accessed. Still I would not call those links dead, in the sense of 'permanently unavailable'. I'm sure the problem will be soon fixed, as Project Rastko is a huge and respectable site. VVVladimir (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is fixed, and the site is working. VVVladimir (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I only reviewed the English language sources Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. In the interests of full disclosure I was asked to look at this article pre-FAC, and I subseqently did quite a bit of copyediting on it. I believe that it now meets the FA criteria and deserves to be promoted. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, is there any concern about the non-English language sources that I should address? I provided information in the trans_title fields of the book and journal templates, but I'd be glad to give any other information on the sources, as well as to respond to any question regarding the article itself (though this nomination hasn't received much attention as yet). VVVladimir (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Ealdgyth is highlighting any problems with the foreign-language sources, she is just noting to the FA delegates and other reviewers that she has not checked those sources for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Nicely written, interesting, seems very comprehensive. One little nitpick: in the Interpretation section, the first paragraph says, "The origin of the badnjak is explained by the events surrounding the Nativity of Jesus Christ. ... By folk tradition, the shepherds brought firewood to the cave and built a fire to warm the newborn Christ ..." But then the next paragraph starts, "There is also a more symbolic interpretation," followed by words from a prayer about Jesus. I'm wondering how the second is more symbolic than the first. I would either remove the sentence, "There is also a more symbolic interpretation," or explain why it's more symbolic. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support and comment :)
 * Besides the commemoration of the fire built by the Bethlehem shepherds (as in the 1st paragraph), the prayer also includes the Tree of Life, the cross upon which Christ was crucified, and the warmth of the fire as a symbol or prefigurement of the salvation made possible by the crucifixion of Christ. On the other hand, that sentence is just a supplementary remark that can be removed without harm, which I did. VVVladimir (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree that "more symbolic" might not be the best term here. VVVladimir (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.