Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peter SamFan (talk · contribs) 13:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this GAN. This may take several days. Peter Sam Fan 13:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

At the end of the second sentence in the lead, why is international recognition of Kosovo in boldface? Also, instead of world community, which seems confusing to me, why not just put the world instead. Peter Sam Fan 13:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"International recognition of Kosovo" is bold because it is the name of the article, although it does appear later than recommended by WP:BOLDTITLE. Bazonka (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the lead to bring the bold title nearer to the start, and I've removed the phrase "world community". Bazonka (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main Body

We should remove the section called "Serbia's Reaction" as it give undue weight (is "weight" the right word for me to use?) and then merge it into the "s" section in the middle. Peter Sam Fan 18:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Serbia differs significantly from the other countries because it and many other countries see Kosovo as being a part of Serbia. Serbia's position is way more important than that of the others. If Serbia changed its stance (unlikely but theoretically possible), the others would most likely follow. So of course its position is given more weight in the article than that of other nations, but this does not mean that it is WP:UNDUE — it's because its position has more weight. Bazonka (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article looks good. I have put the GAN on hold for seven days. Peter Sam Fan 18:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazonka: Time for my bedtime. I'll finish the review on Friday afternoon or so. Peter Sam Fan 00:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazonka: In the sentence "Zahid Oruj, member of the parliamentary committee on defence and security, explained it by saying "Owing to the change of situation in Kosovo, the Azeri peacekeeping battalion performing its mission within the Turkish contingent will be withdrawn", I would put "a member" instead of just "member." That does not seem like good English to me.

Changed. Bazonka (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazonka: Sorry for taking so long. I've fixed the dashes using a script, and it seems like the rest of the article is good-article-worthy. I would copyedit it, and check for dead links before adding it to WP:GA. Peter Sam Fan 18:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

Peter SamFan, Bazonka, it seemed to me that this nomination had stalled, so I took a look at it to see what the issues might be in the hopes of getting it moving again. When I looked at the article, however, it seemed to me to be more of a list than a regular article—the vast bulk of it certainly is lists in table form—and if so, it shouldn't be judged here at GAN. Instead, if it were nominated for anything, it should try for a Featured List (WP:FLC).

I wasn't sure, though, so I consulted one of the people who run the FLC process, Chris Woodrich, on his talk page. His opinion is that it sort of resembles Description of the Western Isles of Scotland in terms of article construction, which is a Featured List.

Part of the Good Article criteria is that stand-alone lists are not eligible to be Good Articles, and I think this probably falls under that criterion. As such, the nomination (originally made by Iheartthestrals) would not qualify and the review should end. You may want to consider nominated it at FLC, but before you do, I suggest you read his suggestions on his talk page at the link above and make sure they are addressed before nominating there.

I'm sorry this wasn't better news, but I think it's good we caught this now rather than later. Peter SamFan, you'll want to close this review (unfortunately, the only option at this point is to do so using the FailedGA template on the article talk page); Bazonka, if you'd like to pursue an FLC, you'll definitely want to make the improvements suggested by Chris. Iheartthestrals, since you did not participate in this nomination, you should not pursue an FLC unless you plan to both respond to requests made as part of the review and to consult with the editors on the article talk page to get their concurrence before starting an FLC. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and Bazonka: That's okay. Peter Sam Fan 12:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]