Talk:Golubac Fortress

message: I've noticed that there is another article at Golubački grad that I suspect this article should be merged into. Anyone good with managing mergers want to take a look at this? jugander (t) 11:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this as well, but I'm not sure whether it should go to the first page (Golubački grad) or this one.  I believe Golubački grad is the Serbian Latin name, which means it should be in parentheses after the English name on this page instead.  However, this page is the one that's actually the duplicate, so...  Opinions? -Bbik 23:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't know which way it should be merged, that's sort of why I didn't start merging. Hopefully your tagging will grab the attention of someone in the know regarding naming conventions, or who can tell us which name is actually used? Personally I don't feel that the order in which the articles were created is that important, lets just get it in the right place. So you're suggesting merge them both into a new article 'Golubac fortress (Golubački grad)'? Let's wait a few days and see what people think... jugander (t) 09:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A double-name new page like that would be entirely too confusing.  What I meant was the first sentence should have "(Serbian: Golubački grad)" not the page title itself.  Though I can see a few ways to logically have the English name(s) in parentheses like that as well.  I'll do some poking around and see if I can figure out which name is used.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's not even all that big a deal, though, since pages can be redirected anyhow. -Bbik 12:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I clearly misunderstood you. Also I agree, it's not a big deal. See what you find and be bold, I guess! jugander (t) 13:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate?

message: This is a lovely article - suggest you submit for GA. Here's the automated 'peer review' from Andz:-
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 25 meters, use 25 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 25 meters.[?]
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, wouldn't, didn't, doesn't, didn't, doesn't.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessed per [[WP:ARCHA]]

message: I have placed this article on hold per the following concerns. Once these are met I will give the article a more thorough review.
At a glance:
*Convert the lists to prose.
*Expand the lead to conform to WP:LEAD.
*Either stub or lose the red links.
*The location and history section is long. It should either be divided up into two sections, "Location" and "History." Or use WP:SUMMARY in an appropriate fashion.
*In recent years belongs under "History".
*I wonder, is their any conservation and/or protection effort here.
*Split up the Notes and references sections.
*External links sections go last, after everything else.
These are just a few things that will need to be fixed to pass GAC (probably). I can go through the prose and do a more in depth assessment too, but these should probably be addressed first.
IvoShandor 08:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further comments can be found at: User:IvoShandor/Notes on Gobulac. I copied the above comments to the article talk page as well. Feel free to edit the Notes page in my user space as tasks are complete or as discussion may arise. I have found the templates  and  useful in the past, as opposed to striking out finished tasks. I will add to that page as I assess the article further. IvoShandor 09:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have decided to pass this as a GA, based upon the timely meeting of the concerns outlined on the full GA Review page, which I will leave in my user space for future reference. Please address the architecture citations and add some citations to the significance section when possible. {Though the info is cited elsewhere, it is just easier for verification) Great job on the article. A full criteria passing outline appears below. 
IvoShandor 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Definitely not GA-status.--Zoupan 22:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoupan, if you wish to start a Good Article Reassessment, please follow through on it based on the instructions at WP:GAR. Since you don't seem interested in doing an individual assessment, which is like a regular GA review, then do a community reassessment. Either way, you'll need to specify at least a few ways that it falls short of the GA criteria, and notify the main article editors and affected WikiProjects so they can work on addressing the issues raised (assuming they're interested in doing so). For now, I've removed the template from this page, since after five months you haven't followed the links to select which kind of reassessment you wanted. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Golubac Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201175314/http://www.raven-glass.com/vlad/romania/timeline.html to http://www.raven-glass.com/vlad/romania/timeline.html
*Added  tag to http://www.rastko.org.rs/smederevo/spomenici_e.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Golubac Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130319070121/http://www.rastko.org.rs/rastko-bl/istorija/corovic/istorija/index_l.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/rastko-bl/istorija/corovic/istorija/index_l.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ashgate.com/subject_area/downloads/sample_chapters/Crusade_of_Varna_Intro.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This older GA promotion is one of the articles flagged as high-risk for not meeting the modern GA criteria at WP:SWEEPS2023. My primary concern here is that a number of the sources used do not rise to the level of reliability required for GA sourcing:
* "Hitchcock, Don (2004-12-13). "Golubac". Retrieved 2007-01-28." - personal website; unclear why this would be considered RS
* "Vladislav cel Inalt Tepelus. "Timeline of Romanian History, 900-1472". Romanian Knowledge Page. Archived from the original on 2008-12-01. Retrieved 2007-03-23." - someone's personal research for their "persona", unclear why this would be considered a RS
* "Harmankaya, Kaan (2002). "Die Familie Mihaloglu - Harmankaya" (in German). Archived from the original on 2017-08-19. Retrieved 2007-03-29." - family genealogical webpage, unclear how this would be reliable enough to meet the GA reliable sourcing criteria
* NNDB has been deprecated as an unreliable source
* "Golubac". Archived from the original on 2007-03-09. Retrieved 2007-01-28." - looks like another old personal website; again unlikely to be a reliable source.
If the sourcing is not improved, a good article reassessment will likely be necessary. Hog Farm  Talk 18:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA status and sourcing concerns