Talk:Walls of Dubrovnik

GA assessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Very good.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   No, the citation style is inconsistent; internet references lack author, access date, publisher, etc. Published works lack city of origin &, in some cases, the issue date.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes, all quotes, statistics, and facts likely to be challenged have been cited.

   C. No original research:

   Nil.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers the prominent aspects of its existence.

   B. Focused:

   Yes.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Somewhat. In future avoid words that don't impart facts (e.g. "old") if circumstances allow. But, of course I acknowledge that some older sources can't be coherently dated.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   All in order.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Yes, but does there need to be so many?

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Yes.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   When you address the issues I've raised above then the article shall pass! Best of luck. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Two quick questions: first, for 2A, which references in particular do you feel need work done on the? Second, for 4, can you give some specific examples so we know what to look for and correct? My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

2A: 1 - 26 need fixing. And every book in the main sources section -- bar Dubrovnik, A History and Razvoj grada kroz stoljeća II, Srednji vijek -- require the city of issue. Plus, why is the internet Brittanica in the bibliography? If there in't a reason, it should be removed, and repalced with individual cite web templates where required.

4:

• "the old chronicles say..."
• "...existed on the Lave peninsula quite a long time prior to that"
• "certain locations..."
• "...relatively new compared to the other gates"

etc.

Hope this helps! -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for advice Jack1755. I went ahead fixing things, but I am sure Laurinavicius will improve them more. --Kebeta (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jack! Kebeta, I'm going to work on fixing the problems in 4. Would you please fix the problems addressed in 2A, as you know more about these sources than I do? Thanks mate! Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course Laurinavicius. I alredy started, and got some help from GregorB. Regards. Kebeta (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think citations are now fixed good enough for GA class. I will check tomorrow on more time. As I see, only internet Brittanica in the bibliography is left as a problem? Don't know how to fix it exactly, so we could just removed it. Yes/No? Kebeta (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll make another pass tomorrow, time permitting. No need to delete it right now... GregorB (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! Well, once the Britannica reference is fixed, then we should be done! My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Did a batch, but it's not finished. Eventually the Main sources section entries should be fixed to match the ones in the article body (but without parameters such as page number or access date, of course). GregorB (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see. How much longer do you think this should take? Laurinavicius (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Will be finished in the next 24 hours or so. GregorB (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks for all your help, mate! Laurinavicius (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I made some minor changes considering Jack1755's Hidden comments, especially about first sentence. I hope it is now more accurate and neutral. Regards. Kebeta (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that it is, Kebeta. Gregor, is it ready to go? And Jack, once Gregor's done, would you mind checking over the article to see if it meets GA standards? Thanks all, and it is was great collaborating with you all! -- Laurinavicius (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with reference formatting. Looks tidier now. I'm glad I've been able to contribute to this article, even if it's a minor contribution. Laurinavicius, Kebeta - if you're satisfied, I think it's Jack's turn again. GregorB (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job. If Jack1755 is also satisfied with references and neutrality, then we just have to wait. Kebeta (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gregor! Great work! I'm letting Jack know that we've finished now. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I just did one more round of reference cleanup - mostly citation parameter tweaks. I added a couple of parameters that were missing, such as work and publisher. (I don't think I've actually added any publisher locations; I couldn't source them directly, because these pages are usually missing in the Google Books preview, and I don't think these are required even for FA class.) I couldn't determine publishers for all web-based sources. Generally, while I think that sourcing could still be improved - mostly by concentrating on higher-quality sources and cutting out the rest - I'd say that it is satisfactory for GA standards. GregorB (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Has the nominator contacted Jack1755 to see if his issues are resolved? Also, an image concern:

• The {{PD}} tag on File:Ottomanbosnia.PNG is deprecated. Mm40 (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is little one can do about File:Ottomanbosnia.PNG. My guess is that this is a scan from a book published before 1923, so its copyright is now expired. However, it is badly sourced, so its copyright status is impossible to verify. GregorB (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I contacted Jack1755, but he was sick. I am sure he will react soon. As for File:Ottomanbosnia.PNG, we can replace it with another, since there is already one map-image in the article. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Passed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! You still need to list it as a Good Article, though. -- Laurinavicius (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I listed it as a good article at 22:38. [1] -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jack! Regarding to image, if its copyright has expired, it is up to Laurinavicius now, if he wants it back instead of new one. I replace it only because its deprecated tag. Thanks again! Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A-class?

I was thinking, since we cooperate very well, why not bring this article to A-class? Of course, when it passed GA assessment, which I hope will be after GregorB's reference intervention. There is no need for forcing it, but steel is forged when it is hot, yes? From my point of view, these are some points we should improve:

• The article is comprehensive, but should be more complete in terms of content.
  • For example, sections and subsections like: Forts, Detached forts, Fortifications around Dubrovnik and City walls during sieges should be filled with text (small lead that describes appropriate content of its smaller subsections, not to be only a title).
  • Generally, more content is needed, especially in major sections like Modern-day city walls and Forts. There is a book titled Walls of Dubrovnik, but unfortunately it is not available on internet.
• All material likely to be challenged by a reasonable person is well referenced, but some work on citation style and quality of the citations is needed.
• The article contains supporting visual materials, but as Jack1755 noticed, there is no need to be so many of them. I think, once we supplement the article with more content, it would look much better.
  • Then we can remove some of them, and
  • Replaced some images with better ones, maybe with some arhitecture layout of walls or forts.
• As for copy-editing, articulate English and prose, I can't say much more, as this is a top of mine understanding of the metter. I hope Laurinavicius will do this job.
• As for neutrality of the article, I can help, but at the end, somebody else should be the "judge", as I am probably somewhat subjective.

Well, I hope you guys are all in for this. Regards. Kebeta (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should bring the article up to A-Class and that these points need fixing. However, there are some other projects that I'd like to work on (mainly bringing up Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Howard the Duck, and Heraclius to GA), so I won't be able to work on as much for a time. However, if you guys want to progress onward to A-Class immediatly, then go ahead, and I'll lend a hand. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, A-class is puzzling to me - it's unclear what its exact requirements are compared with GA-class or FA-class. Also, like Laurinavicius, I'm not sure how much time I'll be able to spend on the article. So, it's a rather tentative "yes" for the time being. GregorB (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A little brake wouldn't be so bad idea. Happy editing. But, I am counting on you guys for Klis Fortress as well ("time permitting" of course). My regards, Kebeta (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be there, Kebeta! Let's do it! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say well done and congratulate Kebeta on his work with the article, it's always good to see a WP Croatia article developed so well :-) I didn't notice the mention of this article on WP Croatia talk page earlier, but if you need help with something to go further and make this an A-class article I'd be happy to pitch in. Keep up the good work. Timbouctou (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, mate! We'd be glad to have your help! Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Timbouctou! It was a team work really. I inflamed the situation, but Laurinavicius and GregorB heavily contributed to make this a good article. As for A-class, any help is welcomed. The main thing is to replace some internet in-line citations, with the more reliable book citations. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I love this article! Great work! I went to a Klapa Fa Lindo gig at the Revelin Fortress with my partner last year & the acoustics were great. Thanks for a great article guys. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lay-out

If for any reason any editor is displeased as for my recent editing on this article, please feel free to revert my actions. Per → WP:Pic → WP:Lay. Very good work on the Walls of Dubrovnik. Congratulations and good luck on your next FA ! Krenakarore (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have restored images per 1.) Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images. (GA criteria) & 2.) Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Walls of Dubrovnik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223192447/http://www.diu.hr/en/sights/city_walls/ to http://www.diu.hr/en/sights/city_walls/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223192447/http://www.diu.hr/en/sights/city_walls/ to http://www.diu.hr/en/sights/city_walls/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531171805/http://www.citywallsdubrovnik.hr/hr-gradske.htm to http://www.citywallsdubrovnik.hr/hr-gradske.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

GA but powered by tourist sites?

How could a GA article be sourced (more than half the time) by tourist sites (like LonelyPlanet and CroatiaTraveller), permanently dead sources, or obscure sites (croatianhistory.net), which clearly aren't WP:RS. This should be fixed Danial Bass (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Walls of Dubrovnik

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2009. Tagged for single source usage, needing better sources, and also having a why? tag in there. Bambots reports "Clarification needed (July 2018), CS1 errors: missing title, Dead external links ((dead link)) (November 2021), Cites unreliable sources (February 2023), ... (February 2023)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

All tourism-related sources have been tagged for needing better sources; while not great, I don't feel comfortable delisting based on this opinion. Giving extra time for this one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.