This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Croatia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article was copy edited by Folklore1, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on October 25, 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
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 has "This section needs to be updated" tags in five sections: Economy, Transport, Demographics, Education, Sports, and As of 2019, the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration employed 1,381[needs update]. It also has "needs additional citations for verification" tag for Sports, and a 'citation needed' in Healthcare section. 'clarification needed' is in Independent Croatia (1991–present) section. With 6 big orange templates article needs work to remain a GA. Artem.G (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly longer than preferable, and with some oversubsectioning. However, overall not a bad article as far as country articles go, hopefully this can be fixed. CMD (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: sections need to be updated, while citations are needed in selected places. As CMD noted, should be fairly easy to get back to GA standard, should someone wish to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]