Wikipedia:Peer review/Bratislava/archive1

Bratislava

This article has recently passed GA process and now I would like to get feedback on how the article can be improved for eventual FA candidature. Among other things, I would like to get comments particularly in three things: the unresolved name issue, which can be seen on the Talk page and archives, and to the Economy and Culture and entertainment sections, if there can be something improved. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: if you will post link to an automated peer review, please note that it was run already once, and results can be seen here. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment This has developed extremely well in the last few months, the article was a pleasure to read concise, well structured providing all the information you would expect in a FA standard article. The article summarizes major topics particularly well. However one or two minor quabbles. Firstly I'd like to see more references particularly on broad statements that will need verification to reach an FA status. In many places referencing is still rather sparse and needs consolidation throughout and reliability of all sources checking before the proposal. Secondly there are one or two unencyclopedic sentences which will need to be factualized. For instance "Bratislava is an hour's drive from the Czech Republic" - maybe so but this is highly dependent on traffic, speed, automobile etc. Stick to fact as much as possible, which you genrally have very well. Thirdly I'd like to see the government and politics section written more coherently and a bit more detail given-this for me was the only flawed section I could see in the article. I have adjusted the structure of the article in places which are related to geography first and beleive this is the structure that will take this to FA. Other than these very minor flaws it is a very good article for the world to read and believe that with a bit of work should reach FA requirments. Well done Mark and to all who have worked on this - ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• As to the distance, this is an old unsourced fact, which I replaced with concrete distance and sourced. Strange that I haven't noticed that earlier.
• To the Government section, it could be done more coherently but not sure about political parties. There are no notable local parties, only state parties make their business.
• And finally to the source reliability and count, we have replaced some of the questionable sources with better ones and are trying to balance the coverage. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 14:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)