Talk:Croatia

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Croatia/1}}

@Moxy, what is the purpose of the tag to split the sports section to the new article Sports in Croatia? The proposed target article already exists and no explanation has been added to the talk page whatsoever.

There appears to had been a commented out "see Canada#Sports for featured article example" added to the article code - which is quite uninformative. Since the article code is not a good place for talk, I have removed that comment since.-- Tomobe03 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:See the sport section at any GA of FA article at WP:COUNTRYSIZE - note the size.and layout. Moxy🍁 14:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::Just so others do not have to read WP:COUNTRYSIZE and explore article stats: I gather from the non-answer that you find 11k words excessive compared to 8-10k range and thought to urge others to trim the article by 10%-ish by adding a tag suggesting creation of an already existing article on Sports in Croatia. Tomobe03 (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:Too much detail - sub sections on random sports? - a section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts Canada#Sports - Japan#Sports. Moxy🍁 17:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::::What important facts are missing specifically? What unimportant facts are there? Have you tried to establish consensus by, for example, raising the issue at the talk page? ...or editing? Pointing out that featured class articles are better than B class articles is pointing out the obvious, and hardly helpful. If the article were an FA candidate undergoing a review, there would be someone to address or ignore them. If you think slapping a notice and doing nothing to at least start discussion or better yet improve the article helps in any way you are wrong. It is as useless as tagging all Wikipedia articles except featured ones as needing expansion or summarizing.

::::Your complaints that the article is 10% too big compared to the COUNTRYSIZE guideline (not a policy) and that there are subsections, pointing to TOOMUCHDETAIL essay (also not a policy), and offering an off-the cuff remark that what's included is unimportant are entirely unrelated to the notice requesting creation of an already existing article. - posting random notices? Tomobe03 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::We'll try to fix it myself in the next few days. Moxy🍁 05:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead for the fourth time and remove some images that are causing sandwiching and other concerns as outlined at Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts. Moxy🍁 22:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Does this article meet all the criteria needed to be nominated for a good article? Joško Ruveneš (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'd say no. At a glance, it lacks some referencing and some updating (says last presidential elections were in 2020) at the minimum. If one were to pursue improvements to the article, I think it would be beneficial to shorten it by summarizing sections where possible, moving summarized material to appropriate articles, moving a significant number of images elsewhere (e.g. map of dialects is hardly sought by casual readers). Citation style should be made uniform and, once all of the above is done, the article prose would probably need a thorough copyedit. Tomobe03 (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)