Talk:Chiprovtsi/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Is this article about the town or the municipality. The lead claims it is about the town, while the rest of the article is written as if about the municipality.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Feel free to add more images; though it is not a criteria for the GA review.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I have on comment about the town / municipality issue; possibly just rewrite the lead to state it is both. Otherwise good to go. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to state them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Could you elaborate on the way you'd prefer the lead to look like? Currently, it mentions both the town (1st sentence) and the municipality (2nd sentence). I have introduced some edits but I'm not sure if that is what your comment is addressing. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 15:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This problem occurs often in Wikipedia, because there is a town that has given name to a municipality; for instance in Norway this has been solved by creating a single article for both the town and the municipality, while in Sweden there are separate articles on each. Splitting up this article now seems like a bad idea, since it is really well written, comprehensive, and especially related to the history section, the two would be overlapping. The problem is that as a reader, it first states that the article is on the town, in my ears then mentions it is part of a municipality with the same name, before the article talks mostly about the municipality. My best suggestion is stating something along the time of "Chiprovtsi is a town and municipality ..." (i.e. making it clear that it is both). Does this seem reasonable? The changes you made are fine, but I would like the first sentence changed to clarify a little more. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the first lead paragraph to address your point, which really is a valid concern. Indeed, the town–municipality separation is a problem around Wikipedia: most Bulgarian articles prefer the one article solution (which I like more), but there is a Category:Municipalities of Bulgaria with a number of places which have to be merged with the town/village article. I agree with you that splitting the article won't be a good solution. How does the current version look to you? Todor→Bozhinov 16:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good; I guess I didn't at first realize the simplicity of the solution. Congratulation with a Good Article! Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And thanks a lot for the review and the well-addressed comments :) Best regards, Todor→Bozhinov 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)