Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Geography of Croatia/1

Geography of Croatia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

There are uncited statements, particularly in the first two paragraphs of "Climate". Many sections need to be updated with the latest figures, like the "Climate characteristics in major cities in Croatia" chart, the "Known and endemic taxa in Croatia" chart, the "Demographics" section, and the "Land use" section (which has an orange "update needed" banner underneath it since June 2021). Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the nominator is complaining about GACR 2b in the first two paragraph of the Climate section referring to missing citations in the section (added/restored in the meantime) and an update tag (addressed and removed in the meantime) placed without any reason stated in the template itself or article talk. The rest are vague complaints about the need to update without saying which main aspects of the topic (as required by the GACR) are missing. By being unspecific in their complaints, I believe the nominator is misinterpreting GA criteria too stringently. They do not say which main aspects are missing specifically, and I think all main aspects (as required by GA criteria) are still met as no major changes in geography occurred in the article scope since the GA reveiw.

Since the specific complaints are remedied and the rest of the reassessment complaint is unspecific, I propose to close this reassessment as keep. (For previous similarly vague reassessment opened by the same nominator, and the same outcome as proposed here see: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Adriatic Sea/1.) Tomobe03 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03: I just did a check, and saw a citation needed tag in the article from December 2019. I also added another tag.
I recommend that the charts be updated because the figures are over a decade old. "Climate characteristics in major cities in Croatia" is cited to a reference from 2012. "Known and endemic taxa in Croatia" is cited to a 2006 source.
The "Demographics" section has some statements cited to outdated sources, like " the natural growth rate of the population is thus currently negative." (cited to a 1998 source), "In terms of age structure, the population is dominated by the 15‑ to 64‑year‑old segment. The median age of the population is 41.4, and the gender ratio of the total population is 0.93 males per 1 female." (2010 and 2011 sources) and "Croatian is the native language identified by 96% of the population." (2011 source). Wikipedia indicates a 2021 Croatian census: I think this figures need to be updated for this article to retain its GA status.
If you are concerned about my reviews, feel free to open a new talk page discussion on WT:GA. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The missing references pointed out by tags have been added as actionable complaints.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the unactionable issues: Z1720, why do you think a source is outdated? It is not outdated unless there is a more recent source stating something new. It does not appear from your remarks you are aware of any such sources, it just appears as if you're curious for others to find out and let you know (as was the case in the completely unjustified Adriatic Sea GAR too). What "you recommend" is good, but not a part of the GA criteria. Moreover, saying I think this figures need to be updated for this article to retain its GA status. reads a bit condescending because it is a statement of what should others do without an ounce of effort to supply evidence that the contested figures are indeed outdated. I am concerned about your "reviews". Neither this, nor the recent Adriatic Sea GAR were actual reviews, but attempts at bureaucracy based on personal opinion that those articles "need to be updated" because you feel so. Simply saying that few years have passed since a source was published is no review. Don't you see how lazy you appear when you essentially say - go look up if something new is published because I can't be bothered to look at anything except the calendar? In this "review", you either believe the geography/climate of the Balkans changed remarkably enough to be a "major aspect" of the topic in the period since the GA review but can't be bothered to point out to the offending datum specifically, or you feel powerful for you have initiated a GAR today and others will clean up their act or else. Please note that newer dates do not necessarily bring new data. For example, the Yearbook reference I restored earlier in the climate section is an eight years more recent publication - and lo and behold, all the relevant figures there were the same as eight years prior. Similarly, gender ratio of the total population is still 0.93 males per 1 female. If something new and major comes up, please point it out as it should be included in the article by all means. In the meantime, research some topic that interests you other than dates of publication of existing sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03: The 2021 Croatian census would be an updated source that would give the most recent figures for those charts. Our Wikipedia article states that the results of the census were published in 2022; if these are not the ones used in the article, then I do not think the article meets WP:GA? 3a, as a major aspect is missing. I do not know if any major stats have changed, but that is why I am initiating a review: to highlight that this information needs to be checked and updated where appropriate.
There are over 40,000 good articles on Wikipedia: I cannot update and maintain all of them. Updating these charts would require me to review the Croatian census information, and I do not speak Croatian. No article has to have GA status: I think it is better to delist an article that no longer meets the criteria rather than have it perpetually listed as a GA because it passed a review several years ago. I cannot spend hours or days of my time updating this article: if someone else can, I will support them.
While disagreement with a reviewer's assessment is welcome and appropriate, this GAR is the wrong place to post critiques of my review style. Here's my talk page to discuss with me one-on-one, here's the good article talk page to solicit feedback from a wider group of editors on my GAR conduct. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]