Talk:Castellania (Valletta)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 15:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be looking to take on the review of this article, expect my full review to be up by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2016 (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.	Minor issues have been addressed, the below is preserved for accessibility. Minor comments; "As fate would have it" <- eh, too colloquial -> Ironically, ..., or, just "[H]e would become the first man to be convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging in the Castellania." "Tribunale Provvisorio" <- A typo I think, Provisorio. "number of purposes" -> number of other purposes "Merchants Street" <- street doesn't need capitalization. (Multiple occurrences) "served as pillory" -> served as a pillory
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article is neatly laid out, the lead section is appropriate, and words to watch are being covered in criterion 4.
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.	Yes all of the sources are referenced in the appropriate section.
	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).	All of the citations are from reliable sources, there are quite a few news citations which are fine and non-controversial. (I have a preference for them to be cited to non-controversial claims)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No apparent original research in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyright violation is unlikely, ~~will confirm with a couple sources before passing this criterion.~~ no problems with anything from the easily accessible pdf's.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers the subject very well and without going into too much depth.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is very focussed with only the most mild drift in some places, and even then only to expand upon a point.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The below has been rectified and preserved for accessibility. Some minor issues; "It is one of the most prominent buildings in Merchants Street" <- Peacock, -> It is one of the prominent buildings in Merchants street, or, It is a prominent building in Merchant street. "it is one of the most prominent buildings in the area" <- again, subjective. As above "The most decorative room" <- non-issue but -> most decorated would perhaps be less evocative.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a quick-fail issue, however, since the nomination up to 3rd August there has been considerable discussion on the article's talk page and the article still appears to be under construction to a certain degree having been expanded from 21.6k bytes to 39.1k bytes. That's a relatively overwhelming change in the space of a week since its nomination. Article is now in a stable condition.
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.	All of the images are the uploader's own work and have been released in accordance with CC-by-SA 3.0.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All of the images have appropriate captions, one has a red-link, I'm not sure how appropriate that is for an image.
	7. Overall assessment.	An unfortunately drawn out one that didn't particularly need to be, the article is indeed well written and sourced with much of the in-article material available for anyone's perusal. Passes GA.

I will be using the above table to complete the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continentaleurope and Xwejnusgozo, you'll need to confirm that the article is no longer under construction before I initiate a review. The article has nearly doubled in size (byte size) since the nomination was initially placed (on 31st July). If the article is ready for GA I'm going to have to ask both of you to abstain from making any more major changes, copy-edits and the like are fine, but, right now the article is not really stable enough for me to review. Ideally, nobody would be making any changes (even CE) until after I post my initial review so that I don't have to review new changes in the process. The last relatively large change (+ 736 bytes) was about half an hour ago, it was to add a reference which is fine normally, but, it's one of more than a hundred recent edits. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes that may need to take place is only a last review by Xwejnusgozo. I apologise for adding information during the review but I only did it assuming it improves and not to hault the GA status. Will take responsability in archiving sources and related sources.Continentaleurope (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an issue, I only took up the review yesterday, I brought it up so that it doesn't start to interfere with the review. I can wait a day or two for Xwejnusgozo to review your changes that's no problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to write the footnotes in full, as they should be written at university standard, however I may still need to learn which format is appropriate and why some archived source may not always work (such as the last archived source). There are at least four sources that need to be written in full. That is all from me. More information about things on the building would require their own article. I will respect Xwejnusgozo's last review before assessment. I do not think there is anything specific to add after review and assessment.Continentaleurope (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll await Xwejnusgozo's reply here or on the article's talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude and Continentaleurope: I just rewrote parts of the article, added a few more images etc (all images were taken by Continentaleurope so there are no problems re licensing etc). I did not add any new info except for some minor details about Nelson's Hook. In my opinion the article is ready for review. Best regards, Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update; expect a couple days delay as I am currently busy IRL, hopefully it'll be up by the tenth. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Is it still possible to review the article yourself or should I request the help of another user? If you have any questions please ask.Continentaleurope (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continentaleurope, sorry for the delay, I can tackle the review, I've been dragged away from GA by a couple other things and will get to this review as soon as possible (assume either tomorrow or Monday). Note, I have been active with fair regularity on Wikipedia, I may have tackled too many GA reviews in a short time frame, and part of the reason for my break. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Thanks for your fast reply. It is good to hear that you still remember about it. I am currently working on the article of the building of the Headquarters of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, which is namely Spinola Palace (St. Julian's). This may take me more than a month to complete. Will ask for some help for this article eventually since I am not an experienced editor. Thanks again.Continentaleurope (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continentaleurope and Xwejnusgozo, I have completed my initial review. First, sorry for the extensive delays in getting this done. Second, this is looking to become an excellent and very well written article and I only have a few minor qualms that need addressing for GA. You'll note criterion 2d is labelled "?", I'll ping you if this changes after I look through some of your sources. Otherwise, 1a and 4 are the only concerns that I have. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Thanks for the review. I have addressed the issues, kindly listed by you. Most streets in Malta are written in full name as Merchants Street or Strada Mercanti. I would prefer the use of capital letter since this is also a name not merely saying "the street". There are almost no sources that refer to streets in Malta that way ....i.e. Valletta Street not Valletta street. Valletta street would be used to say a street that leads to Valletta not the name of the street. It is always written as Merchants Street, Rue de Merchants, Strada Mercanti. I have complied and changed Street to street but I think Street is more correct in the context of country, literature and consistency.

I also checked for copyright, plagiarism and paraphrasing and found nothing in violation of this.Continentaleurope (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if Street is more correct than street in this context then feel free to change back to the original. I noted it only because where I live and places where I have lived it's always been spelled as street. Other than that, I'll review your changes and notify if anything comes up. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article used without contribution

@Xwejnusgozo: The Maltese society in Australia in their journal have copied word by word the summary of the article. Also a local Maltese NGO has copied and paraphrased some of the articles with links to Wikipedia. see. A source at least gave attribution. Should we collect such sources for a reason or another?Continentaleurope (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Continentaleurope: Given the amount of information that is available on Wikipedia, it's inevitable that there are some who simply copy and paste without attribution (although if used for a publication the editor/s should know better!). I have no issue with paraphrasing, although they could have removed the links. I guess a list of these sources can be made, but I don't think that anything can be done per se. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]