Talk:Schengen Area/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
- Please fix the disambiguation link for Null. Done
- Please fix the dead link "Stories from Schengen: Smuggling cigarettes in Schengen Slovakia". The link for "Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the Union, Guide on how to get the best out of Directive 2004/38/EC" no longer appears to connect to the correct page and also needs to be updated. Done – – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sections where lists are used and prose would be preferable. For example, the "The Schengen Agreement and the Schengen Convention" section, the "European Union Regulations" section and the "Legal basis of the Schengen rules" could be rewritten as prose. Done
- Similarly, the frequent use of sub-headings impedes the readability of the article by presenting the information in a choppy fashion. I'd recommend reducing or entirely removing subheadings in the Territories of Schengen states outside the Schengen Area, Status of the European microstates, Regulation of internal borders, and Police and judicial co-operation sections. Done but I can't sign myself here, because I did not do it.
- The table showing current Schengen area countries could be revised to remove the largely unpopulated "exempted territories" column, shifting that information to the footer section. The information in those footers might look better in a separate Notes section at the bottom of the article. Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Please remove the spaces before and after em-dashes (—). Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Make sure there is consistency in the space between the p. and the number when citing page numbers. Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, sometimes you put "p.3" (no space) and sometimes "p. 3" (space). Choose one and be consistent. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done that. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- The article is not adequately cited. I'd recommend a reference at the end of each paragraph at minimum (and this only when that reference supports all the preceding information in the paragraph up to the previous ref provided). Done all the ^{[citation needed]} tags. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

I will be reviewing this article over the next several days. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the nominator.

And I am leaving some comments too!

As far as I know, there are 6 criteria, not 5. Pass/Fail should be listed as 7. Please see WP:WIAGA. Done

The formatting seems to have been disrupted in the list above, but all required criteria are there. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the spaces after m dashes, that is a personal preference. Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(1) Well-written Mistakes to avoid, point Number 1. Done

Please consult the more relevant section of the Manual of Style. There are no spaces around the em dash, but there are spaces around the en dash. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:WIAGA: (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(1) Well-written Mistakes to avoid, Second point: Demanding compliance with your favorite MoS pages. Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)}

09:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have taken you less time to just improve the article by removing the spaces and bringing it into compliance with the MOS than by arguing with me. Do you care more about the quality of the article or having a little GA symbol at the top of it? Nobody said I'm going to fail the article if you don't comply with my suggestions, but frankly when you argue back with me about every little suggestion it makes me not want to bother volunteering my time to review them. Please understand that the review process is voluntary for the nominator and reviewer alike, and is meant to strengthen the quality of the content on Wikipedia. Most nominators are eager to make improvements to the article under review regardless of whether it's GA or FA. Your cooperation when the requests are not unreasonable helps to keep this voluntary system operating to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:WIAGA: 6: Illustrated, if possible, by images. Done

Your version: "Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?"

Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(6) Appropriately illustrated First sentence of it.

Please don't get hung up on the phrasing of that point in this template (which another very experienced reviewer created and which is frequently copied and used by myself and others on this site). I'm an experienced reviewer and editor here and know that a lack of images is no reason to fail an article when no relevant images are available. And you have images, anyway, so you don't need to be concerned about that. But I may tweak the wording in this template to avoid arousing concerns in the future. Thank you for bringing your observation to my attention. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said to fix the dead link. Please see: WP:Link rot#Keeping dead links Done

What you need to do is let me know whether the page is truly dead, in which case the link can be kept. However, in the case where the url has merely changed, it simply needs to be updated and archived. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the page is in a choppy fashion. Would you like it if all the page were one long, boring page without sub-headings?

Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(1) Well-written Mistakes to avoid, last point.

I'm telling you that at times it's not easy to read as written because the text is broken up quite a lot. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, but the purpose of a peer review is to get an outside opinion on whether the article meets the standards of GA. I'm providing you that feedback here so that the article can communicate the information as effectively as possible to a wide audience, which I'm sure you want. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want more citations. Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable Mistakes to avoid, Second point.

Here I can agree with you. I was incorrect to ask for references to back up all the content of the article, although doing so would enable your readers to educate themselves more completely about this topic you are clearly so interested in. But for GA, Wikipedia has set a low minimum standard for citations, which you certainly have the right to meet and not exceed at this stage. I'm sure you'll do it well if/when you decide to take this article to FA. All that being said, the article is still inadequately referenced per the GA criteria. I've provided indications where a citation is needed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How come inadequately referenced per WP:WIAGA? From WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable Mistakes to avoid, second point in the brackets.:

Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)}

09:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because all statistics need to be cited, even per GA's minimum standards. I indicated where there was a statistic that needed to be cited using the ^{[citation needed]} tag. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then we got that cleared up... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 14:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what would be helpful is if you could tell me how you approached the citations in this article. And did you provide most/all of them, or were many added by other reviewers? There's a certain lack of consistency and if that wasn't your intention we could look at it together. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't do any significant work on this article, just a spelling mistake from time to time; all the work was done by other reviewers, I just nominated it. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a lot. Normally the primary contributor nominates the article. You'll want to identify that person and leave him or her a note on his/her talk page to notify that the article is under review. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And don't say that this is not official. This was in WP:WIAGA#See also.
And last, but not least... From the intro of WP:WIAGA:

A good article is a satisfactory article that has met the good article criteria but may not have met the criteria for featured articles. The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.

This is to be a Good article, not a Featured article.

I hope that this will help you and change your comments.

Second opinion

Well, since the neutrality of this review is being questioned and there appears to be an element of "barrack room lawyering", I will review it in full. I will leave sentencing to the primary reviewer. Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing this section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.

Ok, that is fine, it will leave us, (me and primary contributor) less work to do at a time... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History -

The first paragraph is vague. It states at the start: "The Schengen Area came in existence on 26 March 1995 when the Schengen Agreement along with its implementing convention was implemented by the five original signatories ..." "along with Portugal and Spain who signed subsequently" and then "Italy and Austria joined during 1997". So when did Portugal and Spain sign? Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The final paragraph of the first sentence is unnecessarily vague. The statement "With the Treaty of Amsterdam, the agreement became part of the acquis communautaire of the EU in 1999." is followed by "After the accession of Greece in 2000, the countries comprising the Nordic Passport Union...followed in 2001.". This appears to suggest that: (1) the Nordic Passport Union followed Greece into the EU, (2) Greece joined the acquis communautaire in 2000 and The Nordic Passport Union followed in 2001, (3) Greece joined the Schengen Area in 2000 and The Nordic Passport Union followed in 2001. Who did what, when and let's have a reference for the claims?

But, where is that? It is not in Schengen Area#History. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have reviewed the version that existed on 13 September 2011. This [diff] shows the changes that have occurred since then. I tend to review corrective actions using Firefox (Windows works as well, but I don't use it) with at least three tabs open: the version of the article that I reviewed, the /GA1 page, the current version of the article and often the reference open (if its a web page). Reviewing is not particularly easy if it is done in any depth, but that is not a valid reason for not reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Membership - Done

This first paragraph seems to be a repeat of the History section. All twenty five counties are listed, all the stuff about The Nordic Passport Union is repeated (and wikilinked) - why its WP:OVERLINKING, on my screen there is about 3.5 cm between the two Nordic Passport Union. Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a comment in the first paragraph: "De facto, the Schengen Area also includes several microstates that maintain open or semi-open borders with Schengen countries.". This needs an explanation and, as its not obvious, a citation is needed. - Note this is covered later in the article so perhaps a note to that effect might be sufficient. Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Done Cited and all, so no problems with that one – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph is unreferenced. Done – One sentence paragraph, so one reference needed. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Current - Done

Looks OK.

- Prospective -

This subsection has an outdated box dated September 2011.
Ref 9, used twice, states that Cyprus will not join before 2010. Well we are now three quarters the way through 2011. Did they join and if not, what's the situation?

This issue has now been fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Territories of Schengen states outside the Schengen Area - Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the title of the article is Schengen Area, the phrase "Schengen Area" should not be used in the section title. Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an abbreviation, non-EEA nations, that is undefined. Presumably there is an EEA, it should be defined? Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A citation is needed for the claim: "France also has several territories which are neither part of the EU nor the Schengen Area.". Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph about Dutch territories needs a citation or citations. Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation of internal borders -

I don't believe that the final paragraph fully reflects the complexity of "VAT". Europe does not appear to have imposed standardised rates of VAT, so for instance there are limits within the EU for the quantities of alcohol and tobacco (cigarettes, cigars, etc) that can be brought across the boarders of some internal countries. Any person bringing significantly more than the "so-called limit for personal consumption" into the UK (from Europe and/or from outside Europe) would be likely to face criminal charges for smuggling and evasion of tax. A company moving these items for commercial/retail sale would need the correct documentation, as would transfers between Europe and EFTA countries. Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this issue should be addressed by a knowledgeable contributor. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this issue belongs into the article, as it does not have anything to do with Schengen internal or external borders. This does not have too much to do with borders and border control, but rather with taxation, which is not regulated by Schengen rules (although by EU law). It is correct that different VAT rates may be imposed by the EU Member States, albeit the general VAT rules are harmonized. For intra-EU movements, the rule of thumb is that commercial purchases are Value Added Taxed in the state of the recipient, while private purchases (with the notable exemption of new cars) are taxed in the state of purchase. The same applies to other taxes, as on spirits, beer, or tobacco products. In case of a commercial purchase, the supplier has to know the VAT ID of the recipient, has to report the transaction with that ID to his own state's tax agency, and the commercial purchaser has to declare the purchase and pay VAT in his own state. The transaction reports are regularly exchanged between the EU Member States through a central data exchange maintained by the EU, while private purchases remain anonymous. Nothing at all will be handled at the border. The only purpose of the "limit for personal consumption" is to separate the two sets of cases and procedures by shifting the burden of proof. To take your example - if a UK consumer can provide proof that he takes a huge amount - beyond the limit for private consumption - of beer and wine from France to the UK for personal purposes, e.g. to host 3,000 guests in his home at a garden party, he would still only have to pay French and not UK taxes. Nevertheless, there are no instituted taxation procedures established at any EU internal border. At manned borders, as at the Channel Tunnel, security and other officials, of course, are not obliged to turn a blind eye on suspicious movements of goods, and may well file reports to taxation authorities, or even seize goods if the have reason to believe that taxes are being evaded. From a practical perspective, it would be advisable for the said UK citizen to notifiy the taxation authorities of the planned import in advance of the actual movement of goods, to convince them that the import will be private, and to carry some official letter in order to convince security staff at the border that the movement is not carried out in a clandestine manner, and that some competent authority is dealing with it, whatever would be the outcome. However, any search, control, and seizure of goods at an internal EU border is no ordinary procedure connected with crossing a border, but a procedure which any constable would have to initiate on the same suspicion in the heart of London, as well. --DanSchultz (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Controversies -
  - Danish customs controls -

Ref 49 is not fully cited. The publisher and the author are unnamed.
Ref 51. Blogs are not usually regarded as reliable sources, however this is a blog by a Commissioner of the EEC on an EEC web site. As such it is not properly cited: only the date and title is given. The author and publisher are missing.
Same comments apply to refs 52 & 53.

These points cannot be fulfilled it the author/publisher/date are not listed on the page. Just noting. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind the date of my review: work has been done on the article so the ref numbers have changed. Ref 49 is now 55, 51 is now 58, etc (see my comment above in History). The "missing" information is provided on the four web sites, it's just that the editor(s) who added the references did not correctly reference the four citations.

Ref 62 is not fully cited. The publisher and the author are unnamed. Pyrotec (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issues identified by Pyrotec above have not been resolved. The editor(s) will need to fix the citations here before the article can be awarded GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation of external borders -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Not done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Entry conditions for third-country nationals -

Here it states: "Border guards are required to stamp the travel documents of third-country nationals ..... , aircraft crew members or seamen are exempt from this requirement and their travel documents should not be stamped.[71]. What the reference actually states: (Not to stamp) pilot's licences or the certificates of aircraft crew members, travel documents of seamen who are present in the territory of a member state only when the ship calls in and in the area of the port of call, to the travel documents of crew and passengers of cruise ships who are not subject to boarder checks in those cases provided for in Point 2, Section IV." This is Not a particularly accurate summary, i.e. what is claimed in the article is not fully supported by the citation.

This issue needs to be resolved before the article can be awarded GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Stays in excess of three months -

The first paragraph is unreferenced and is therefore not verifiable.
Ref 74, 75 and 76 are not fully cited: no publisher is given; at least two are dated, but no publication dates are given.

These issues need to be resolved. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Police and judicial co-operation -

Most of this section, five subsection out of seven, is unreferenced and is therefore unverifiable.

I agree that additional citations would strengthen the article and particularly to enable readers and reviewers to verify the contents. Much of the content of this article lies outside the realm of "common sense" and so could be considered debatable content requiring additional referencing. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal basis of the Schengen rules - Done

The text looks OK, however since the title of the article is Schengen Area, the phrase "Schengen Area" should not be used in the section title.

I oppose to this one, as it is Schengen, not the full phrase 'Schengen Area' – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will clarify/re-phrase my comment: words used in the article's title should not be used in the section titles unless (there is a get out clause: it's clearer) (See WP:HEAD. "Schengen" appears in the article's title so it should not appear in the section titles (unless it's clearer). The section could be titled "Legal basis", "Legal basis of rules". You can object if you like but "it is Schengen, not the full phrase 'Schengen Area' –" is not a valid basis for objecting. The only valid objection is that the section title is clear when Schengen appears in the section title. Decision for lead reviewer, to take. Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, it is fixed. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 18:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead -

This is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points. Arguably, it does both. Its possibly a bit "thin" as a summary but not sufficiency so to raise a corrective action.

The article would be strengthened by expanding the lead, but I agree it isn't necessary to attain GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images - Done

Suitably labelled and with copyright statements.

Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pyrotec. I'm in the process of moving overseas in the next few days and things have been a little hectic. Your detailed comments will be a great help in improving this article and moving the review toward completion. I'll check back in a day or so to see whether the nominator has addressed these points. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lemurbaby, I hope the move overseas goes well. I'm in Europe with no computer access, rather the the UK, for much of what is left of September so I'm trying to close off in the next few days two GANs reviews that I'm placed On Hold. That's why I was intending to leave the decision on pass/fail/hold to you as lead reviewer (it's your call anyway), but I will be back on wikipedia in October. Pyrotec (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits to the prose have created some new problems in terms of style, clarity and grammar. I'd like to see this article undergo a copy edit by a neutral third party. I'd also like to see the nominator address the remaining points Pyrotec raised above, particularly in regards to the sections where no citations are provided. Since this information does not fall into the "common sense" category and could be contested by a reader, providing a source to allow readers to verify will contribute to the quality of the article. I will put the article on hold until the copy edit and remaining revisions above can be completed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- In light of the non-action of editors in line with the suggestions identified above over the past two weeks, I cannot award GA at this time. Much hard work has been done in this review process and I thank you both, Pyrotec and Plarem, for your contributions to improving the article. I hope it will be renominated once it's gone through a copy edit, ideally a peer review as well, and the issues identified above have been addressed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]