Talk:Milenko Stefanović

{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN

|action1date=14 August 2007

|action1result=not listed

|action1oldid=150661269

|currentstatus=FGAN

|topic=music

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=no|class=C|listas=Stefanovic, Milenko|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|class=B|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=}}

{{WikiProject Classical music}}

{{WikiProject Kosovo|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Jazz|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=mid|Belgrade=y|Belgrade-importance=}}

}}

Untitled

I agree. Both articles are about the same person. Andrija

Was this a serious GA nomination?

Someone listed it on the WP:GAC page, but there was no template placed here. The article is so clearly deficient in my opinion that i'm thinking maybe someone was just making a mistake in nominating it, the reviews section is little more than a POV fluff section, there are no internal citations to demonstrate that the article actually uses its references, the lead clearly does not summarize the entire article, and even if I wanted to check the references for reliability I couldn't, as only one of them appears to be written in English. Homestarmy 05:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 14, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

:1. Well written?: No, there are many manual of style irregularities " ( violin, piano and, later, clarinet).". The lead section needs to be able to stand on its own as a mini-article per WP:LEAD. Selected recordings section needs to be formatted to look better.

:2. Factually accurate?: No, there are no inline citations. Only one source is in English.

:3. Broad in coverage?: Education, Awards, Teaching career and Affiliation sections need to be expanded.

:4. Neutral point of view?: The reviews section is unsourced bias in favor of the article subject.

:5. Article stability? Yes

:6. Images?: No

{{ #if: | }}

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.

T Rex | talk 12:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why so many citations?

It's unclear to me why there are twenty citations after many of the facts. One or two citations are quite sufficient if they verify the fact. Hopefully, this is not due to synthesis or original research, which is not permitted. Will a regular editor of the article please review and remove any excess citations. Created a further reading section if necessary. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the obvious problem citations to web searches (not permitted) and to Blogspot and Wordpress blogs, which are typically not reliable sources. But there are still way too many citations in the article which still need to be evaluated and cleaned up. I don't read the language so I am not able to do much more. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)