Talk:Jyväskylä/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 07:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to review this article. I will read through it carefully and provide some initial feedback on the article in the next few days. Thanks in advance to the nominator. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 07:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed an initial readthrough of the article. Currently, the article falls short of meeting the GA criteria. One option is to leave this review open for seven days and work very hard on the feedback below; after that, we can evaluate it again. The other option is to close the review for now, work on the article at a leisurely pace, then to nominate it again. That is your decision. Here is some initial feedback.

Prose

The grammar needs a bit of work, but we can do that when the rest of the problems are cleaned up. A bigger problem is that there are some very short sections or paragraphs. If those are merged or reorganized, I think that the flow of the article will improve. One example is the Name section. That could be included in the History section, I think.

Images

I checked each image in the article. Most are okay as far as copyright. There is one image, the first image of the university, where the copyright description is not clear to me. Another image, the one of the Neito statue, appears to be under a deletion discussion. In general, I think that there are too many images in the article. MOS:IMAGELOCATION advises not to sandwich text in between two images. That is probably beyond the scope of the GA criteria, but I think your article will read more easily if it is less cluttered.

Lead

Two of the paragraphs in the lead are underdeveloped. You might consider adding some brief economy information, since that's a fairly substantial section of the body.

References

There are large sections of text that appear unsourced or poorly sourced. In several places, there are subjective assertions or claims of superiority (best, excellent, remarkable, biggest); those statements could be challenged and really need strong references. In the first paragraph of the Economy section, I can't find where the reference mentions IT businesses being tempted to the city. Another example is the mention of the four immigrant groups in the Nationalities section; there are only three listed in the source.

Lists

In the Sports, Education and Culture sections, there are bulleted lists that might be better presented in prose (see WP:L). The non-notable sports teams can be removed from the list before converting it to a paragraph.

I have some minor feedback to add once these major issues are addressed. Thank you for the work that you have already completed on this one. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 06:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination now due to lack of response to feedback. It can be renominated if the nominator becomes active again.

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.	The grammar needs work. Articles (especially the) are missing before several nouns.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Too many images, but I don't think it violates WP:LAYOUT specifically.
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.
	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).	Should add citations for assertions like biggest, excellent, best.
	2c. it contains no original research.
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).	May reconsider which athletic teams are notable enough for list inclusion.
	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.	See review feedback for two concerns.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	No response to review in ten days. May be renominated if reviewer returns.

Thank you for the opportunity to review material that was new to me. While the article doesn't meet the criteria right now, the "building blocks" are there for a future nomination. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 17:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]