Talk:Ladronka

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ladronka/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm happy to take this one on for review. I've not reviewed an article about a squat yet, so I'm looking forward to it. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Starting with replies now - regarding recent edits, I wouldn't regard it as a leisure centre - that has the connotation for me and our wikiarticle of being a sports-based place, like gym/swim/climbing wall. I'd say Ladronka is more of an activities centre since it incorporates a restaurant and bar, bowling and so on. But happy to discuss before reverting. Also buildings can be evicted as opposed to people, this comes up every now and again, seems to be a difference between common usage and academic usage perhaps - please see a discussion which occurred during a previous GA review Mujinga (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Also as another general point, seems odd Ladronka isn't mentioned at Anarchism in the Czech Republic, I'll add an appropriate mention with source if I come across one. Mujinga (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

done Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It does strike me that there prob is more potential crossover between Anarchism in X and Squatting in X pages - are you still busy with AiX or have you changed focus? I've slowed down with SiX but still progressing. Mujinga (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

History

• Citation [1] needs a publication date (28 August 2004), editor credit (Kateřina Sekyrková), and a language tag (cs).

  added lang tag, not sure if pub date and editor are needed on a web ref? Mujinga (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [1] Verified, although I needed to go into a link on this page to find its exact address.[1]

  yeah I may as well just use that instead then, that's the "official site" of the activities centre, which is fine just for its address Mujinga (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• If it was built in 1340, then Charles wasn't yet the Holy Roman Emperor. At this point in time he would have been the Margrave of Moravia.

  wahaha you got me there I'll have to look into it :) Mujinga (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  You would be a fearsome pub quiz opponent :) Rejigged, hope it works better now Mujinga (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [2] Verified most of the details. But I couldn't find a description of it as a "homestead". Are we sure this is the correct term?

  I'd say so yes, added a link to spell out the connection to usedlost Mujinga (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Citation [3] needs a language tag (cs)

• good point, sometimes it's automatic but maybe not for cs

• Spotcheck: [3] Verified most of the details, although it appears that this text is mostly being sourced from citation [2]. (E.g. the year of purchase isn't mentioned in citation [3])

  good point again, added 2. Mujinga (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• I feel like there's some gaps in the timeline of its ownership. For example, citation [3] mentions that it had been turned into a farmstead by the 19th century; citation [2] details that the Sovereign Order of Malta owned it until the 20th century, and that it was used as a warehouse before the communist authorities turned it into flats.

  i don't really get the bit about it becoming agricultural when it was already a vineyard but I added the rest Mujinga (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Self-managed social centre

• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• Any reason that citations [6] and [7] are each referenced inline twice within the same paragraphs? There aren't any quotes, so I'm confused as to why this is.

  hmm strange, I'd hazard a guess I was adding info over time and didn't notice I was using the same ref(s). fixed Mujinga (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Citation [7] needs more details, such as publication date (April 2016), volume (IX) and issue (1-2), and page numbers (34-45).

  done Mujinga (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.

Leisure centre

• "leisure centre" still sound wrong to me, per above ... recreation centre maybe? Mujinga (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga: "Recreation centre" redirects to "leisure centre", so use whatever works for you. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Activity centre ? Mujinga (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  ok went for activity centre Mujinga (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Citation [10] needs a publication date (22 February 2005), editor credit (Kateřina Sekyrková), and a language tag (cs).

  as above, lang tag sure, pub date well ok i guess why not, but i don't think a website needs the editor credit Mujinga (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Are there any independent sources that can be used instead of ladronka.cz?

  it's a website about skating at ladronka so i think it's ok for basic historical details (at this level at least) and i oculdn't find anything better Mujinga (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Any more recent news than 2005? It's been two decades since the renovation, I'm sure more things have happened since then.

  true! will do another scan Mujinga (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  So checking sites like idnes, blesk, denik, pravo, I'm not really finding much to add. The park's recreational facilites were extended in 2009/2010, Ladronka gets mentioned sometimes in passing reference as regard other squats, that's about it. Mujinga (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think even that wee detail would be worth adding. That at least brings the history closer by a few years. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  The bit about the park? I don't see it as particularly relevant to the building Mujinga (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's relevant, just to show that it is being maintained. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  sure - I'm coming round to the idea and found a nice article to add stuff from Mujinga (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  added a sentence Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• as a sidenote, I'm trying to make archive links but the bot is down 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Mujinga (talk)

  that went through eventually Mujinga (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• Should probably clarify when it was built and the status of Charles at the time of construction.

  added 1340, for me Charles IV is ok because that's how he is known now Mujinga (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Could probably do with another sentence about what was going on with the centre before its eviction. E.g. what the squatters did there, why it was evicted, etc.

  sure! Mujinga (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   No issues with prose or grammar. Only a minor issue of clarification.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References should be filled out, where incomplete.

   B. 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 text has an inline citation. Might be worth checking if the ladronka.cz sources can be replaced with sources more independent of the subject.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecks verify almost everything, although there's a minor issue with information being pulled from a different source than the one cited, and one possible case of iffy terminology.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No issues flagged by Earwig.[2]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Appears to be some gaps in the timeline, particularly as to what has happened with the centre since 2005. If sources on this exist, more information should be provided.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Only potentially non-neutral wording (i.e. "moral panic") is cited from multiple sources, so I think it's fine.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No major changes since 2020, no reversions in article history.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Sole image is an original photograph freely licensed under Creative Commons.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Image is relevant and appropriately captioned, including with alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Very nicely-written article on the whole. My main issue with this article is really with completeness. It just reads to me as odd that an open and still-active centre doesn't have any information on it further than 2005. If more information can be found to fill in the gaps, I'd be more than happy to pass this. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ohc that's a nice surprise, thanks for taking it on! I'm a bit busy IRL until the weekend, possibly next week even, but I can def get comments back to you in 7 days. As initial answer on completeness yes your point makes sense, I should look into it again and perhaps if I don't find much about recent activity then retitle the article to Ladronka (social centre), which as you probably guessed is my real focus here. Mujinga (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment re the "homestead", it's likely a translation of the Czech term "usedlost". Ladronka was one of many "usedlosti" which became part of Prague as the city expanded in the 19th century (cs:Seznam pražských usedlostí). Our article homestead (buildings) interwikis to cs:Usedlost but other possibilities are "manor", "manor house" or "estate" (the latter might be a bit misleading). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Filelakeshoe: Thanks for clarifying! --Grnrchst (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Filelakeshoe, @Grnrchst I've answered on everything now, see what you think. Happy full moon! Mujinga (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga Okay! Thanks for seeing to everything, I'm more than happy to pass this now. Nice work pal. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Mujinga (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)