Talk:Slabinja

Slabinja was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 20, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Slabinja article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Villages (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Villages, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.VillagesWikipedia:WikiProject VillagesTemplate:WikiProject VillagesVillages

Demographics graphic

I think the graph for the population over time should be a line graph with a continuous x-axis and not a bar graph. Since the intervals are unequal, the bar graph as currently presented is misleading. Mattximus (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slabinja/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IndexAccount: - hi! I've completed my first runthrough of the GAN review. The biggest issue is the consistent grammatical errors throughout the piece. There are also a couple of uncited claims. I'd like to spend some more time assessing the reliability of the sources as well. Right now, it's not in a good place for Good Article status, but with some work it could be brought up to that point. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IndexAccount: - I think, after considering the situation, that it makes sense for me to fail this GA review for now. That'll give you some time to make improvements and you can re-nominate after that. I think the scope of the changes needed is too much for one review. Let me know if you strongly disagree, though, and we can talk about it. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IndexAccount:, as it's been a week without response, I'm going to fail this for now. Overall, it's a fine article - with the changes described below, it can definitely become a good article! Let me know when you renominate it. Thank you for your work on this article. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Many grammatical issues - tenses, sentence construction. Needs considerable work to bring it up to GA status - particularly of note is the section on the Serbian Orthodox Church. The History section also has quite a few issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
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.	In 'Economy', is there a citation for this claim: "while young people mostly work in nearby cities."? Last two paragraphs of 'Transport' are uncited - would be good to have something there.
	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).	Difficult to assess reliability of sources - mostly non-English.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Few issues beyond uncited claims mentioned above.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked against sources and also generally. No issues. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable. Most work done last June. No edit wars. Pass.
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.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass. No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	Does not pass. 9/20/19.