Jump to content

Talk:Caldas da Rainha/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started reviewing this and made some comments, but I might take a while to finish - the article is far longer than anything I've reviewed previously. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]

Infobox

[edit]
  • I don't think the logo's non-free use rationale is perfect. I'm sure you could replace the two "n.a."s with brief explanations of why the media is not replaceable, and why the logo doesn't compromise any market role. I would also disagree with the purpose of use in article stated - it's not really primary visual identification of the subject and not directly at the top of the article (three images precede it). It's there to inform the reader that Caldas has a logo and to show what it is - speaking of which, I can't find the logo explained anywhere. I haven't read the full article yet, but the word "logo" doesn't appear in the article outside of the infobox. I'd like some information on the logo - is it an official logo? Where did it come from, when was it made and what is it used for?
    •  Done I added a short paragraph about the logo to the History section. I improved the fair-use rationale. I used the upload wizard when I uploaded it; the wizard added the "n.a."s itself and did not prompt for that info. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the same lines, the coat of arms is explained but I don't see anywhere where the flag is expanded upon. Similar to the logo, I'd like to know where it came from, when it was made an official insignia etc.
  • I can't find a source for the municipal holiday being 15 May, although this is mentioned again in passing under "Transport". Is there a source somewhere for this?
  • The time zone section isn't sourced either, in the infobox or under the relevant sentence in "Geography".

Other than that, it's looking good so far. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 21:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

[edit]
  • Ref #35 ("As evidenced by the names...") might be better suited to a note format, with the two newspaper websites being references within the note.
  • (Second para) Is it worth having a wiktionary link to coterminous?
  • (Third para) I think linking area and perimeter is a bit much.
  • I'm glad the article explains the 12/16 parishes thing - I got slightly confused when articles like A dos Francos said "one of sixteen", but there were only 12 on the list. I've changed all "sixteen"s to "twelve"s in the articles for the parishes, but that's tangential to this article. Going back to the infobox, is it worth having the number "12" written next to the collapsed "Civil Parishes" parameter (change | parts = value to 12)? It's more specific, might avoid confusion and certainly more helpful than the current word "List".
  • (Note 3) "Researcher cannot find the law..." — what? "Researcher" as in "the person who wrote this Wikipedia article", or "person who wrote the newspaper article" or someone else?
  • (Still note 3) If it's dubious that Alvorninha is a town, remove "town (vila)" and ref 49 from the table and have the note start off with (something similar to) According to a Gazeta das Caldas article, Alvorninha is a town (vila);[49] however, Statistics Portugal reports that ... and continue on with the text in the existing note 3.

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

[edit]

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Government

[edit]

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

[edit]
  • The penultimate paragraph might work better as a table, or possibly a list. Currently, it's very hard to read. The last two sentences could be placed either before or after the table.

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 07:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arts and culture

[edit]

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 07:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attractions

[edit]

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 21:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics table

[edit]

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transport

[edit]
  • Why are "regional" and "interregional" in italics?
  • The last paragraph may be a bit over-incited (although I know that's just an essay). It looks a tiny bit cluttered — could we have ref #155 only used at the end of the paragraph, rather than 5 times throughout? Even if you removed ref #155 altogether, every sentence would still have at least one ref, so it's still easily verifiable.

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]
  • The section is perhaps a bit long without images or tables. Could level 4 headings be added anywhere? For instance, a sub-heading for compulsory public education could be added.
    • I used to have subsections all over the place, but automated peer reviewer kept telling me I had to many sections, so I eliminated all subsections. I believe that adding a subsection here alone would cause an unbalanced look in the table of contents. Should I add subsections to other sections? Looking back at the state of the article at the end of last year [1] does show too many subsections as well as too many stand-alone sentences, which I ended up combining. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph, ESB is the only bracket to use a semi-colon, rather than a comma.
    •  Done
  • Why does "[sic]" appear in the UCB bracket: I can't see anything spelled wrong, unless it's a problem with Portuguese spelling. (And personally, I would use Template:Sic with the link, for anyone who doesn't know what sic means.)
  • "...which offered courses in biotechnology" seems a bit redundant given that it's talking about the "Upper School of Biotechnology" — can the biotechnology link just be moved to that bracket?
  • Same problem for the third paragraph as with the last Transport paragraph: the citations make it hard to read, and ref #169 is cited 6 times.
  • What is the fourth paragraph sourced to? I know you've pointed out WP:BLUE#Citing everything before, but everything needs to be sourced somehow, even if not incited.
  • Do we need the whole lists of where the 27 schools and 28 kindergartens are? It's repetitive and I don't think it needs to be included. The refs still include the entire lists for anyone who needs to know.

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Health and safety

[edit]

Sports

[edit]
  • "...with peak years seeing six such events" — it took me a few seconds to get the meaning out of this clause. I think removing the word "such" would help.

Notable people

[edit]
[edit]
  • "available for iOS [1] and Android [2] devices" — this linking seems a bit clumsy. I'd either put "[1]" and "[2]" in brackets: ([1]), or link them on the words "iOS" and "Android". They would probably normally be linked in "Caldas da Rainha - City Guide", but I suppose the matter is complicated since there are two different links.

Lead

[edit]

Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. All comments have been addressed. Pass for GA. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 07:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]