Talk:Šipan/GA2

GA Review

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Jalapeño (talk · contribs) 09:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalapeño: - the citation issues described below are quite severe. I'm going to pause the review to let you address them.

@Jalapeño: thanks for the comments and improvements thus far. When do you estimate you will be able to address the rest of the issues re: sourcing by? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalapeño please let me know when you will have time to work on this article; otherwise, I will have to close the review as unsuccessful in the next few days. If you need a delay, that's fine, it's easy to put it on hold for a week. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this review due to unresolved issues with no timetable for fixing them. However, if these issues are addressed, re-nomination would not be a problem in my view. Happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The house originally owned by Vice Stjepović-Skočibuha is still intact, and is centrally located in Suđurađ This sentence needs a citation.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	For Glamuzina and Glamuzina, "Problematics" would probably be better translated as "Issues" or "Challenges". What makes Hrvaska.net a reliable source? Is the https://www.enciklopedija.hr/ encyclopedia a reliable source? Yes. The encyclopedia was created and has been maintained by the Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography. Ok, sounds good. TLDR History is certainly not a reliable source and should be removed. What does "Pseudo-Caesar" mean for the author? The citation can be improved to be clearer about author and translator. What makes dubrovackidnevnik.net a reliable source? Directly run by RTL Hrvatska, created by the RTL Group and owned by it until 2022. Sounds fine. Please add authors and publication dates to the citations where available. For the Gazette source, how do we know that Zupana = Sipan? Is this original research? The citation can also be improved by adding the publication date, page #, etc. Cite #11 (Vice) should be improved to give the website name and source (Project Lazareti) Cite #12 (Southeastern Europe) needs a page number, author, ISBN, publisher, etc. Cite #13 (Zaboravljeni) needs an author, publisher, website name, date, etc. There are similar issues of missing information for almost all the remaining citations, #s 14 through 24 at the moment. Please improve these so they are as complete as possible. What makes #16 (direct-croatia.com) a reliable source? Goravica.com just seems to be a random business' website. I'm not convinced it's reliable. Casamundo.co.uk is almost certainly not a reliable source. What makes total-croatia-news a reliable source? From their about page: It is a Google News-accredited site which is followed by a lot of the international media. We were delighted to bring the New York Times to Hvar in Summer 2017, as well as to be recommended by both The Guardian and The Sunday Times. In August 2017, leading Croatian daily, Jutarnji List, called TCN ‘the world’s most reliable information for Croatian destinations.’ I'm not convinced by that, it sounds like puffery to me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm not convinced that turistickeprice is a reliable source. In general, the heavy reliance on tourist + booking sites is not at a GA standard. These sites are trying to sell people on something and some of them are essentially just blogs or clearly written as PR. More scholarly books and reliable news articles are needed. Fair.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig suggests that this is a borrowed phrase There are two ports on the island, Suđurađ () in the east, and Šipanska Luka () in the west. I agree and it should be modified asap. Fixed. There's one other apparently borrowed phrase surround a dolomite depression but on inspection I think the source borrowed from Wiki rather than vice versa. However I do therefore recommend removing Source #7 (https://www.hrvaska.net/en/destinations/island-sipan.htm) and finding an alternative to avoid circular reporting / citogenesis. I've changed this phrase as well. Issues above addressed, hold for spot-check at end.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.