Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Belgrade/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 15:49, July 31, 2007.

Belgrade

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Serbia, WikiProject Belgrade. Todor→Bozhinov 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags and largely unreferenced sections, images are too big and too many (they disrupt the text flow), formatting issues (particularly with references, as most don't seem to use cite templates or a unified style of reference formatting), too great reliance on web references (needs way more published sources). I'm pretty sure Geography can be expanded (I'd call it a stub section), and History may have to be summarized a bit more. Although it hasn't been tagged, Names through history is also unreferenced. Todor→Bozhinov 13:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My goodness — look at those footnotes (I was traveling when this was promoted). No publishers identified, so we need to click on or mouse over 100 sources to see if they're reliable. No dates, no authors, no last access dates. Lots of WP:UNITS fixes needed also. Apparently promoted on fan support, without serious review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? "Citation needed tags" as in a single citation needed tag added last week (now removed)? "Unreferenced sections" as in a single unreferenced section, also since last week? (The other tagged section was referenced.)
When the article was promoted, concern was raised about the images, and it was decided that one image per section should be fine; images have not been changed since.
There are no formatting issues with references. Yes, they don't use cite templates, but that is not a FA requirement. Cite templates could be added easily if they are needed. No, there is no overreliance on web references. All the references are either on-line editions of printed material or official sites, mostly official site of Belgrade, both of which is perfectly acceptable. Publishers are almost always identified.
Geography could perhaps be expanded but I really don't see how could the history section be trimmed.
As for accusations of "fan support", how about actually looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgrade? I never saw most of those people, and most of them have never edited the article. Nikola 09:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When this article was in FAC, I mentioned the problem with the citations - I insisted on the fact that there were no printed sources, and all the emphasis was on inline sources, something not enough for such an important topic with historical and cultural parameters. Aren't there any printed sources talking about the history of Belgrade? Why are the editors occupied just with the Internet. Anyway, even if such sources are not added, I hope that the current citations will be properly and uniformly formatted, indicating publisher, work etc. Make proper use of Template:cite web or Template:cite news.--Yannismarou 09:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to blow my own trumpet, but I did the vast majority of the work to get the article to featured status. Given my current location, books about the history of Belgrade weren't readily available. And like Nikola says, it's not like I used Geocities - the official sites of the city and various musuems etc should be reliable, wouldn't you agree?--Hadžija 13:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misunderstanding above: there is no request to use citation templates, which are not required. Publishers and last access dates are needed on all websources, and authors and publication dates should be specified when available. See WP:CITE/ES, and I made several sample edits. Also, on one of my sample edits, the text claimed something about the Financial Times, but the citation was to the City of Belgrade, and I was not able to find any confirmation with the Financial Times. This is an example of why complete citations should be given, to help readers verify validity of sources without having to click on each one. Completely formatting references does not mean that cite templates must be used; it just means the necessary info should be provided for a complete reference, by whatever means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worked hard in last two days to address the major concerns raised here (citing style, English-language references where possible, architecture and timeline citing); maybe I made some errors in the hurry, but I hope the article is better now. Duja► 13:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It starts looking better already, keep up the good work! Todor→Bozhinov 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List:

  • Miscellaneous is not an encyclopedic heading.
  • References are still not formattted; blue links without publishers identified and without last access dates or language icons, author and publication date when available. See citation examples. The references are not presented in any consistent, recognizable or professional citation format.
  • I fixed them with Gimmetrow's script, but regular editors should become familiar with footnote placement and punctuation per WP:FN.**
  • WP:UNITS still unaddressed (non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement).
  • Wikilinking needs attention; per WP:CONTEXT, common words like "protest" do not need to be linked.
  • WP:DASH attention needed, as well as copyedit needs; sample — Besides to its native born population, Belgrade is home to many Serbs from all over the former Yugoslavia, who either came seeking a better life, or fled as refugees from war and ethnic cleansing. Unofficially - taking into account the large number of Serb refugees from Croatia, ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Miscellaneous: acknowledged supposedly fixed
    • WP:UNITS, WP:DASH: acknowledged supposedly fixed
    • References not formatted? I've just fixed 3-4 obvious typos in cite web, and 95% references does have publisher indicated. 99% references are from cite web and/or cite book templates.
    • The "protest" is not linked to protest, but introduced by myself yesterday.
    • Copyediting: acknowledged, but I prefer to leave it with someone with better command of English.
  • Duja► 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes are still not formatted. Have you looked at WP:CITE/ES? I would make some more sample edits to help get you started, but the ones I made days ago were removed. I'm not sure how else to get across the work that needs to be done on the footnotes, as Yannis also mentioned it above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of sourcing issues, which I raised above and has not been addressed. There is a statement about Belgrade winning an award from the Financial Times, but sourced to the City of Belgrade website. It should be sourced to the Financial Times, which I couldn't find. But I did find that it was sourced to a magazine, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) owned by the Financial Times. The source should be the fdimagazine article. The article referencing needs work still; too many primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), images (3), comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 10:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes Needed - 1 (a)- Prose: in terms of content I feel looks ok; I'll muse on this with a copyedit. The main problems are two: it needs a thorough copyedit. I'll make a few soon. It is unfortunate that the books mentioned in Further Reading aren't used as references rather than loads of websites. I'll let someone else look at the image status.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First para of lead is listy.
Layout - first para of History section badly needs expanding. A few more lines on Celts and Romans should do it.
If I have to vote today, I'd say Remove on the basis of 1(a) Prose and 1(c) referencing. All websites and EB - with all these nice books listed in further reading but not cited? However I will have a look tomorrow to see what else can be done if there is any time left.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, I did add a bit to the history but ultimately am unable (ok, let's face it unwilling) to address teh crux of it which is the referencing. I note there has been little movement since the 18th. This is frustrating as there is not a huge amount to do for someone familiar with it or with a good book or two...
Thanks for your edits. Well, there's been "little movement since the 18th", because there's no one else active around and familiar with the subject and in possession of a "good book or two" (Well, that might lead us to FA concern of maintainability :-) ). The concern of heavy relying on web sources is acknowledged, but 1) it wasn't an obstacle for the article to pass the original FA nomination, even with far worse sourcing than now and 2) why fix if ain't broken, i.e. why artificially introduce book references when there are fine online ones? I do agree it would be nice if the article had it from the outset, but it didn't.
To briefly address Sandy's footnote formatting issues: all the references do use {{cite web}} now (except a few using cite paper or cite book). A large portion of it are city's or companies official sites, where the article author and publication date are not indicated; in those cases, the publisher=Official site of... rather than author=Official site of... is used (a small effort can be done to replace that, but I don't think it's a big deal). Thus, they might not appear identically formatted, but that's what {{cite web}} gives.
While I acknowledge my mild COI on the topic (although I didn't actively develop it to the FA status), I'd say that the article's shortcomings are not such that they justify FA removal. YMMV of course. Duja► 08:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, this is very frustrating; weeks have gone by, the article has improved, and yet each time I look at the article there are still MOS and copyedit issues (someone should run through with an eye for redundancy), and refs still aren't formatted. PLEASE see WP:CITE/ES, and note that all websources need a last access date. {{convert}} might be used to standardize and provide equivalents on measurements. The level of sourcing is still frustrating, for example In 2006 the Financial Times of London awarded Belgrade the title of City of the Future of Southern Europe.[117] should be sourced to the Financial Times, not to the City of Belgrade. I seem to recall trying to find the source myself weeks ago, and it's not the Financial Times; it's a magazine associated with the FT. A few more days to finish up, or I'll be a Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done an iteration of reference reviewing and formatting diff. I also did some copyediting, WP:$ fixes etc. Maybe a pair of fresh eyes could help regarding copyediting.
    As for access dates—D'oh! I did place them in most {{cite web}}s at the previous pass, but just now I realized that the argument name is accessdate=, not retrieved=. That probably explains why they didn't appear :-D. Should be reasonably complete now. I'll take a look at {{convert}} later... hopefully. Duja► 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is a big problem. Take the opening para:
    • largest city OF the Republic (unidiomatic)
    • settlements emerged (unidiomatic)
    • "3rd"—see MOS.
    • Remove "literally".
    • First recorded ... where? Reference?
    • First became the capital in 1284. I presume that it lost and rewon this status later.
    • "as well as" x 2 in the same sentence, hello?

Remove it. Tony 15:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, but there's still work going on from Duja. I'll ask Cas to look again at the prose. Marskell 10:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed some things Tony has highlighted and found some more. I feel a bit at sea with some sentences as I'm not sure of the underlying 'truth' as it were as I am not familiar with the topic, but will try when I have time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh, I'm wading though the swamp of prose - dilemma "The hyperinflation of the Yugoslav dinar, the highest ever recorded in the world, also decimated the city's economy" - active tense but 3 clauses, or "The city's economy was also decimated by the hyperinflation of the Yugoslav dinar, the highest ever recorded in the world." - neater clauses but passive (infact 2nd passive in a row in the article....)......cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then we have this incomprehensible sentence in the first paragraph: "the Serbian Despotate was governed from the city from 1403 to 1427, while in modern times it was the capital of the Principality of Serbia, which became the Kingdom in 1882, and of the various incarnations of Yugoslavia from 1918 until 2006." I'm tempted to remove, but Duja is still plugging away. I'll ask him/her. Marskell 06:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Him. It would be a shame that the article is removed only on the basis of prose. Like I said before, I don't feel my English skills are adequate for FA-quality prose; even if they were (well, I can rise along the normal level on occasion, but only in the moments of concentration and inspiration), I waded through that text so many times that I cannot even notice clumsiness and redundance. I've asked a friend for a pair of fresh eyes.
I replaced the sentence in question with a more universal one, but it still didn't turn out right even for myself. I'm sure there are more within the text, but like I said, I can't really see them. As always, any help is welcome :-). Duja► 08:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]

Not done yet, but here's what I've noticed so far. All things considered, the prose really isn't that bad, just a few "a"'s and "the"'s that need adding/removing, and some rearranging of phrases within sentences to help it all flow better. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific issues

  • The first settlements in the Belgrade area emerged from the prehistoric Vinča culture in 4800 BC.
    OR
    The first settlement of the Belgrade area was by the prehistoric Vinča culture in 4800 BC.
    • I'm not sure which version I prefer, I think I remember someone complaining about "emerged" farther up this page, though I'm not sure why. But there's an alternative. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about "Some of the oldest settlements in the Belgrade area are those of the prehistoric Vinča culture in 4800 BC."? Vinca itself emerged from Starčevo-Körös culture and lived in the same area (I'm not sure if there are Starcevo settlements found in Belgrade) but is much more known and that is why it is mentioned. Nikola 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why make it sound more uncertain than it is, especially in an FA? "Some of the" is too reminiscent of "some people say this, others say that", but it looks pretty certain to me (now that I've gone and looked at the source) that the Starčevo culture was the first one, so that's the one that should be mentioned, lesser known or otherwise, and especially since there's a link. Starčevo is also the only one mentioned with the 4800 BC date, not Vinča, so that crisscrossing should be fixed as well. ("The oldest/first settlement of the Belgrade area was by the prehistoric Starčevo culture in 4800 BC." Minor grammatical nitpicks for sticking with the singular, too.) Perhaps something like "predecessor to the Vinča culture" should be added to the history section, though, if that will help people. -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, there are two things: 1) which settlements are found to have existed and 2) which settlements could be conjectured to have existed. As I said, there are discoveries of Neanderthal remains in Belgrade but I can't find a source. So, it could be "Among the oldest settlement of the Belgrade area were those by the prehistoric Starčevo culture in 4800 BC, followed by Vinča culture later on." Vinca should still be mentioned as it is more known. Or perhaps simply "4800 BC old settlements of Starčevo culture were found in Belgrade; they were followed by followed by Vinča culture". This states facts without using veasely words. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Undent) I don't doubt that in the least, every culture comes from something earlier, but if there's no known earlier culture, then it doesn't matter (until found). As for the abruptness, that sentence could be switched around a little to read "The area was settled by the prehistoric Starčevo culture in 4800 BC, and later by the Vinča culture." which makes the paragraph a little better, but the sentence doesn't flow as well then. I'm not sure what else could be done to give it some more lead-in, unless the entire intro is rearranged and/or more information is added. I do agree with you that it could be improved, but (at least given the sentence rearranging) I'm not sure it's really that big a deal. -Bbik★ 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terrain of Belgrade proper is hilly, and the highest point of the metropolitan area (303 m) is Torlak hill.
    • This sentence feels awkward, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Belgrade proper as in the actual city, and metropolitan area as in the city and surrounding city-like area? Why is a differentiation made? It sounds like the two areas have the same general terrain. Perhaps "The terrain of the Belgrade metropolitan area is hilly, with the highest point (303 m) at Torlak hill."? Or, if both phrases are meant to refer to the same area, depending on which area that is, leave out "metropolitan" and either stop there, or substitute "area" for "proper" (and delete "the"). -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh; "Belgrade proper" is meant to denote the "old" city (but the "old" is not a proper adjective either, as it also significantly expanded in the last 50 years), on the right bank of Sava. I'll try to add a clarification. Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Metropolitan area is roughly divided in two parts: one that is hilly and one that is not; the city center is in the hilly area, but also most of the rest of the city. Nikola 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So... is how it is now ok, or what are you suggesting? The last sentence could be shifted into the middle of the first to make it that much clearer that both sides of the rviers are part of Belgrade, but that makes the entire paragraph incredibly choppy and not fun to read. -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its ancient walls, castles, harbours and churches were refortified...
    • Its? What's its? Belgrade's? Does Belgrade have multiple castles? The Despotate's? If the Despotate's, the sentence should just be deleted (and somewhere around there it should be broken into two paragraphs, I can't decide where). -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps we could simply say "Belgrade fortress was refortified". Nikola 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why add a red link when it's unnecessary? As it is, there are already a lot of them (see my note at the bottom). I'm also not entirely certain what you're responding to or suggesting. Your sentence would make the most sense in response to the original bulletted version, but that's since been changed. So are you suggesting the entire current sentence be replaced with yours, or just part of it, or? -Bbik★ 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the other hand, there is a link for Kalemegdan, which obviously covers the "ancient walls" part. It sounds like there was already a fortress there, though... Or multiple that kept being destroyed and rebuilt. Did Lazarević actually (re)build one himself, or just repair the latest version already there? -Bbik★ 18:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, there is slight difference between Kalemegdan and Belgrade fortress, in that, roughly, the former refers to today's park as well as to the fortress in its last stadium of use, while latter refers to the fortress during its entire existence. For now, the simplest solution could be to make a redirect from Belgrade fortress to Kalemegdan. Or, what you did. Per his famous quote, Stefan Lazarevic says that he found the city in ruins when he rebuilt it. Nikola 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1817, it became the capital of the autonomous Principality of Serbia, and again in 1841, after a period with Kragujevac as the capital.
    After independence
    The capital was moved from Kragujevac to Belgrade by Prince Mihailo Obrenović, following the departure of the town's Turkish garrison in 1867.
    • Er... When/why did it move back to Kragujevac? The sentences themselves are fine, but there's a rather jarring jump between them. Any chance of a few words or a sentence explaining the switch this time? (For that matter, {{Historical capitals of Serbia}} doesn't even show Kragujevac as being the capital in 1866/67, though it shows Timisoara rather than Belgrade 1849-1860...) -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pančevo Bridge, which crossed the Danube, was opened in 1935.
    • Has it fallen since? If not, that should be changed to "which crosses the Danube". -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Or, better, "the first that crossed..."? Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "the first to cross the Danube (at Belgrade)", in that case, but unless it's the first bridge ever to cross the Danube, and that can be sourced (the one you've added is unclear whether it means first ever or first in Belgrade[/Serbia?]), it'll either cause disputes or require those last couple extra words to clarify. Same thing for the "and only one" bit. The Danube's a long river, I'd be hard-pressed to believe a single bridge in Serbia is the only bridge over the river. -Bbik★ 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The bridge has not fallen, but has since been replaced with another bridge of the same name, built at the same place. So it is not completely correct to say that it was "the first (and still the only one) over the Danube". Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later that day, tanks were deployed onto the streets to restore order. According to various media outlets, there were between 100,000 and 150,000 people on the streets that day.
  • <!--|-
    | Biograd na Dunavu
    | Old [[Croatian language|Croatian]] name, means White City on Danube-->
    • Why is it commented out? For being similar enough to the current name, or? -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unsourced, AFAICT, and not really relevant; Croats have never been in city's possession.Duja► 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I vote it be removed entirely, then, no need for it to be there and cause confusion to anyone else who notices it. -Bbik★ 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could be. Perhaps it could be mentioned that original Slavic name was Бѣоград, with yat, that's where Biograd comes from (not sure if it was ever actually used). Nikola 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Beligrad is the name currently mentioned as being the original, though the source doesn't actually back that up, all it says is Beograd. Have any sources to support either original name claim? Here's one for Beligrad, though I don't know how reliable it's considered. Here's another, "Adapted from: "Treasures from Yugoslavia" An Encyclopedic touring guide"; perhaps someone could get ahold of that so we have a definitely reliable source? I don't imagine I'd be able to read anything that could support the other one, especially doing it as a Cyrillic search. -Bbik★
  • Taking into account the large number of refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, displaced persons from the province of Kosovo, students, and people counted in censuses in their hometowns, the population may surpass 2 million.
    • This follows a sentence talking about specifically Serbs coming to Belgrade from elsewhere, so is it also referring specifically to Serb refugees, Serb students, etc? The population estimate at the end and the following sentences would imply otherwise, but the setup of the paragraph confuses the situation. -Bbik★ 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Problem gone, sentence removed. The list isn't much use without the (unsourced) population estimate, and was just a more specific version of the previous sentence, anyhow. Any complaints about the new version of the paragraph? I shifted info, so moved the references some too, but I think I matched it up right. -Bbik★ 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economy section
    • It's frustrating me. It feels stunted, or something, and refuses to flow well. I've done some significant rearranging, and it now follows a timeline of sorts, but I'm not sure how much of an improvement it is. (Any chance the National Bank is in Belgrade because it's the most economically developed? That would make the first sentence work a whole lot better.) -Bbik★ 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belgrade has an extensive public transport system based on buses (118 urban lines and more than 300 suburban lines), trams (12 lines), and trolleybuses (8 lines).
    • Should the specific numbers really be there? That seems like something that should be left to the main article, but I'm a bit biased by having absolutely no interest in transportation, which is why I'm asking rather than outright deleting. -Bbik★ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Travel by coach is more popular, however, and the capital is well-served with daily connections to all major and minor towns in the country.
    • First, I assume the link I added is in fact the type of coach the sentence is talking about, right? Since trains were the sentence prior? Second, do one of those sources say it's more popular, rather than just also popular? Third, "to all major and minor towns"? Do these coaches really go to all locations that are bigger than a village? (It's also redundant and I've removed it, but left it here for the sake of confirmation.) -Bbik★ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following renewed growth in 2000, the number of passengers reached approximately 2 million in 2004 and 2005. In 2006, 2 million passengers passed through the airport by mid-November.
    • Growth of the economic variety, presumably? Or is some other type of growth meant? And should it be "nearly 2 million in 2004 and 2005"? Otherwise, what difference does it make pointing out that there were again 2 million in 2006, or, perhaps, even a passenger drop again, since approximately could mean both more or fewer than the given number? -Bbik★ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • The history section should probably be given its own page (and then be expanded significantly, obviously. I imagine there's plenty more information around, especially on the World Wars). The short bits for each subsection currently aren't bad, but there's a decent amount of information (mostly an overabundance of specific dates) that could be removed and would greatly help flow and readability. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References should be checked, perhaps duplicated, now that I've split parts into paragraphs -- as it is now, much of the more recent history appears unsourced. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to MOS:NUM, units of measurement should be spelled out. I did for most, but spelling out km² seems far more unintuitive than any of the other units, so I left it alone. And besides, "square kilometers" or "kilometers squared"? The first just sounds weird to me. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the article is in British English, though some things seemed to be a bit mixed. I'm not sure if I helped that out any or not, as I speak American English. I tried to look out for the differences, but I doubt I know all of them, and I wouldn't be surprised if I quite simply didn't notice a few because I'm so used to one spelling over another that it wouldn't stick out as wrong. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shifted a few pictures, and though some are now at the very end of the wrong section from an editting perspective, from a reading perspective at least they don't split the header from the main text or leave odd-looking single lines between images, and there's less overlapping of pictures at each end of the same line(s) of text. Despite that people say they've deleted pictures, there may still be a few too many. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to remember a discussion about COAs being covered by fair use guidelines, and as such they could not be used in the list of cities in Serbia. Since I imagine municipality COAs are much the same as city COAs, should the municipality ones also be removed from that section of this article? -Bbik★ 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of red links, especially in the Culture section. I got an awful lot of grief for that going for GA, was that just unusual, or should something be done to at least stub (the majority of) the links? -Bbik★ 03:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Culture section longer than the main Culture of Belgrade page? Not to mention how big a difference there is. I don't know that the entire thing should be cut and moved, but certainly a large part of it. I'll see if I can come up with a shortened alternate version, but that could be a while. -Bbik★ 03:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More recent population estimates would be nice, if they can be sourced. Come across anything while you were formatting all the references, Duja? -Bbik★ 14:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More later, I need a break (and food!) now. -Bbik★ 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's been two and a half weeks since my last comment, and the references still aren't complete. If others are satisfied with the prose, I will do the reference work myself. If others aren't satisfied with the prose, that wouldn't be a good use of my time. Unless the prose is approved by Casliber, Tony and others (per objects above), I'm a Remove. If the prose is now good, let me know, and I'll correct the refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also just added a cite tag to this, so a new review for citation may be needed: The hyperinflation of the Yugoslav dinar, the highest inflation ever recorded in the world,[citation needed] also decimated the city's economy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References added; I don't know how many should be added, but there are plenty more out there ([2] for one). I'm not sure what you're seeing wrong with the current reference formatting, though. Admittedly, I haven't looked too closely at them in my prose copyeditting, but even looking through the history to find your example repair edits, I'm not sure what you changed, except for a couple that I could see you moved the punctuation before the citation or removed the space between punctuation and citation. Are there more misplaced punctuation marks/spaces that I missed or something? If you could explain in a bit more detail what the problem is, we could do something about it. -Bbik★ 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the formatting is fine. Just check to add author, date, and retrieval date to those where it is absent. Marskell 09:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, there is still missing information (last access date on all websources, publisher on all sources, and publication date and author when available). I can finish this work if needed, but since some of the sources aren't English language, it won't be easy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: This has hit the two month mark, and I'm going to default keep it. An enormous amount has been done and the page has improved significantly. I gave the prose a slight brush-up and didn't notice any of the clunkers I saw previously. Page editors should watch for repeated blue links. I also think there's a bit of a gap in the history from 1970 to 1990. Marskell 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Belgrade/archive1&oldid=1078810047"