Talk:2012 Croatian European Union membership referendum/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 19:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking this review.

Comments[edit]

Lead, good; layout, good; list of opinion polls a little long but within an acceptable range (for GA).
Coverage good.
Sourcing good - although could you please reference the note? It is controversial, easily out-of-date and well, quite important. Are the brackets right in ref #9? On verifiability/close paraphrasing I checked a couple of English sources, they are fine. I've take the Croatian sources on good faith; obviously you have much less of a close paraphrasing problem with them.

Sorry on the note - I thought I'd put in a reference for it. I have transplanted over the reference from another Wikipedia page (re Kosovo) as a temporary measure; I'm working now on reformatting it. I've also fixed ref #9. Allens (talk | contribs) 22:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference fixed. It is admittedly from 2008 - the announcement of Croatia's recognition of Kosovo. The addition of a more recent mention, such as by the news media, may be a good idea. Allens (talk | contribs) 22:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chipping in. The reference is now replaced using a more recent one (from 2010) referring to a newspaper article reporting on opening of Kosovo embassy to Croatia, but also containing the date of the diplomatic recognition and date when diplomatic relations between Croatia and Kosovo were established.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The note content is produced by Template:Kosovo-note and I'm reluctant to do anything about the template since it is used in a lot of other articles, and is changed actively as International recognition of Kosovo content changes. (The article on recognition is thoroughly referenced though.) If that proves to be a dealbreaker here I'd rather remove information on reaction by Kosovo officials instead.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be able to reference the note after the template, no? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the reference may become obsolete fairly quickly in case of a new recognition. Should I go ahead and reference 91 UN members anyway?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the reference, but apparently it is impossible to place the ref in line with the text produced by the template, so it is at the end of the note instead. How about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose an occasional update can easily be performed, especially since the note content itself will alert when an update shall become needed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation is perfectly satisfactory.

Prose - given it a going over (mostly for tense). Could you check that I haven't changed the meaning?

Everything appears to be in order in that department.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images - fine. However if you want to take this to FAC you ought to provide the sourcing for the images.

Right, I'll have a look at those later on then.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All in all only a few minor things to fix (on hold). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I will address the issues you raised right away.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed; was in good shape before. Passing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]