Wikipedia:Peer review/Zaprešić/archive2

Zaprešić

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed a good article nomination and I'd like to make it a featured article. Thus, I need some brushing up and fixing some things before nominating at FAC.

Thanks, Admiral Norton (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Natural Cut: I would definitely like to see an audio link of the name if possible, see Hawick, Bordeaux and Gdańsk.
 * I'll put it on the to-do list, since my nose has gone crazy last week and I'm not exactly good at pronouncing words right now.

'The refugees brought the Ikavian element preserved for a long time in some small Zaprešić communities' - Should be changed but I'm not sure how to reword it. Ikavian redirects to Yat, a letter of the Cyrillic alphabet.
 * Ikavian, Ekavian and Ijekavian are variants of Croatian that differ in the pronunciation and writing of yat (written "i", "e" and "ije", respectively). The problem present here is the fact that we don't have articles about these variants. I'll create some stubs to fix that in the near future.
 * It's okay if there's no article, but you should (briefly) explain what you just told me. To an outsider such as myself, the sentence made little sense until you explained it. Natural Cut (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph about the 30 November forming of the Town of Zapresic needs some work. It says that 'the settlements of the new Zaprešić (excluding Merenje) were incorporated into the town from parts of the surrounding municipalities' but would be better stated as 'parts of the surrounding municipalities of Pusca etc were incorporated into the new Zapresic' or something similar. Bring up Merenje after that. Also, there is mention elsewhere in the article about how the settlement of Zapresic was present before this time, so you should mention where it figured into the equation.
 * I re-worded the first part according to your suggestion. However, there is a slight issue here, as "settlement" is a translation of the Croatian word "naselje", that describes an administrative division below the level of a municipality or town. They mostly conform to single villages and are used similar to census designated places in the US, but that is not always correct.
 * I see, that makes sense. It sounds good the way it's written now. Natural Cut (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I also took out the '(exists as of 2009)' because only one of the three places ceased to exist. If there was a reason for the note, such as Pušća's current existence being in danger, you can make a separate sentence about the impact the reorganization had on Hruševec Kupljensk and Pusca.

Under culture and media, 'a 20-year-long citizens' struggle to invite electronic media to the town' sounds a bit odd.
 * It's not in the citation, although I'm sure I read it somewhere. I'll try to find it, but I deleted it for now.

Under notable inhabitants, I added a clarification tag to the description of Matija Skurjeni as a naive painter since there are two meanings listed on the page it links to. Also, would it be fair to say that Josip is the most well-known resident? It would sound more exciting than just starting out with 'A known historical resident'. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I dare to say that Jelačić is the most publicized ban in the history of Croatia due to his involvement in the Illyrian Movement and the fact that almost every city in Croatia has a major street or a major square named after him (see e.g. Ban Jelačić Square). However, I'm not really in favor of keeping the term as it isn't very compliant with WP:PEACOCK. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right, although given his place in Croatian history I think it would be stating a historical fact rather than a peacock term. But better to be on the safe side. Natural Cut (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)