Talk:Trump Tower Belgrade/GA1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 19:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I will review this. But here are some of my preliminary comments:
- The lead is a bit too short and could be slightly further expanded.
- Probably more details of the site could be uncovered, if any.
ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- More information can be added from these Serbian reliable sources: , , , and . Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I will be willing to review if the lead is expanded further. Otherwise, I might have to fail because I felt it isn't yet broad in its coverage.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Rationale makes no sense. The article is not irrecoverable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for being a bit too brash. I just hope that there's effort to at least work on improving it. But I must admit, I think it's still a little premature to nominate this for GAN when the building is still under construction.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Specific legal issues facing Goran Vasić have not been updated in the article, which is always a concern when the subject is a relatively current event. The article mentions how Vasic "was arrested for allegedly fabricating a document justifying removing the Yugoslav Ministry of Defence Building's cultural status"
which was a May 2025 development, but fails to mention that Vasic admitted to falsifying the document and thus was "charged with abuse of power by Serbia's organized crime prosecutor", both developments occurring in June of 2025. So in essense, information from May was, by June, already outdated in the article. The editor Vacant0 posted additional Serbian sources 7 days ago, yet nothing from them has been incorporated into the article. This information being overlooked shows ZKang123's concern over a lack of broad coverage[a] as being warranted. Because the story is still playing out, eyes will have to be on updating the article fairly frequently. Kudos to editors willing to take this on. Regards, Spintendo 23:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for being a bit too brash. I just hope that there's effort to at least work on improving it. But I must admit, I think it's still a little premature to nominate this for GAN when the building is still under construction.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 04:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Rationale makes no sense. The article is not irrecoverable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- I will be willing to review if the lead is expanded further. Otherwise, I might have to fail because I felt it isn't yet broad in its coverage.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Notes |
|---|
|
Notes
|
Taking into account points made by Spintendo, unfortunately I don't think this article is in adequate shape for GAN and I find this a rather premature nomination. Sure, the history and reception sections look pretty comprehensive and well-written, but this building hasn't even yet been completed and I doubt it could be adequately "future proofed" with further developments and updates. Especially when the building is completed and more details of its design would have to be added.
I will recommend renominating when the building is eventually completed, then the article would have stabilised by then.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)