Talk:Croatian Littoral/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I'll be glad to take this review. I'll start in the next few days with a close readthrough of the prose, noting any initial issues, and then follow up with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up this nomination. I expect to have limited access to wiki over the next week, but I'll address any issues brought up as soon as possible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

On a first pass, this appears to be thorough and well-sourced, with detailed coverage of geography, climate, culture, population, economy, and history. I'd have been interested to see slightly more demographic information about the area (particularly ethnic make-up),

• The hidden link to "sensu" was disorienting, especially since the article is not specifically for sensu lato; I'm not sure it's needed, so I'd suggest just removing it per WP:ASTONISH.
• "linked to a Late Jurassic to recent times fold and thrust belt" -- I found this phrase quite confusing. Does it mean the fold and thrust belt existed from the Late Jurassic to recent times? Does it still exist today? I would also suggest breaking up this very dense sentence into two sentences.
• I would also suggest splitting the very complex sentence that begins "The Dinaric Alps in Croatia ... "
• "its possessions to the" -- the pronoun "its" is ambiguous here. Perhaps replace with "Venice's", assuming that's what the article means.
• Was the region affected by the Croatian War of Independence? The declaration of independence is mentioned in the history section, but not the fighting. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Since these are minor points and the article looks to be in good shape, I'll proceed to the checklist. Take your time with the above, since your internet access is limited; it's fine if you don't get to this for a week. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Since my internet access will be quite normal this weekend, I'll try to get as many points as possible. I tried to address all the points above, clarifying or restructuring sentences as suggested, and removing the sensu lato wikilink. Regarding the last point above, the region saw no fighting in the war whatsoever. It was only indirectly affected by economic decline due to reduced volume of business of the Port of Rijeka and obvious adverse effects on the tourism as few people plan their vacations in countries at war. The closest direct effects, i.e. combat the region saw were 1991 air raids (and an actual missile hit) on the Pag Bridge connecting the island of Pag to Zadar, although that's generally classified as Dalmatia, and 1995 combat in Velebit mountains in Karlobag hinterland, but that belongs to Lika region. I might try to get a reference to support a sentence to the effect that "no fighting occurred in the region during the Croatian War of Independence" but finding such a reference (that no such an event occurred) may be problematic - I'll give it a shot though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarified the last issue raised above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear and correct. Spotchecks of a few sources (both English and Croatian, the latter through Google Translate) show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are in public domain or under Creative Commons licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass