Talk:Adriatic Sea/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot questions below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the table headed Length in kilometres of Adriatic coastlines, why not just have "0" for the nations which have zero islands, rather than "N/A" which you then have to explain....
 * You're right, that is a far better solution.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * table header labelled Most populous urban areas on the Adriatic's coast - looks odd to me, I'd go with "Most populous urban areas on the Adriatic coast" (i.e. adjectival rather than possessive) - more natural flow
 * Yes, that's odd.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  The Adriatic Sea is a unique part of the Mediterranean... - hmmm, everywhere is unique. The adjective doesn't give me any idea why it is special - more exacting descriptors needed here.


 *  The unique nature of the Adriatic gives rise to an abundance of endemic flora and fauna. - and again, what uniqueness
 * That's right. I expanded that paragraph to include a brief explanation what makes it "unique" in terms of marine environment.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaah ok, much better. Ok continuing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * link delta at first instance.
 * Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * placeholder - I've read to Age of sail - prose is good. Not finding much to copyedit at all! nice work....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  A Corpus separatum formed in 1779 and containing the city of Fiume (modern Rijeka) directly subjected to the Kingdom of Hungary was confirmed and the rest was part of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, which in turn was also in the Transleithanian part of the dual monarchy - this sentence is confusing and should be broken up.


 * I've attempted a copyedit on this; am now going to bed... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 04:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A little bit better but probably could be tweaked more - especially if FA is the goal (which it should be as this is shaping up very nicely) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've again tried copyediting this, hopefully without changing the meaning (a look at corpus separatum (Fiume) helped). Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 21:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  The Adriatic coastline controlled by the Ottoman Empire shrunk in 1878 - sounds odd (like the coastline itself shrunk!) - try "The Adriatic coastline under the rule of/that was controlled by the Ottoman Empire shrunk in 1878" or somesuch.


 * Rephrased a bit, hopefully clarifying the sentence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  The Ottoman Empire was completely removed from the Adriatic.. - I know what is meant but the wording is odd, how about "The Ottoman Empire lost all access to the Adriatic" or something similar.


 * Rephrased slightly as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  The World War I Adriatic Campaign was largely limited to blockade attempts by the Allies and the Central Powers' attempts to break the blockade - two "blockade"s in the one sentence....can we change one?


 * Rephrased a bit to remove one "blockade".--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Fishing section has a lonely bit at the top of the section which doesn't neatly append onto any of the three following paras. Given global issues with depletion of fishing stocks, here might be a good place to add any material on fish species who have been (or are likely to be) fished out and steps taken to conserve them.
 * Good idea, I'll add a bit along that lines (presumably today) .--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A brief description of the issue is now in.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know that the See also section is particularly useful.
 * Me neither. It's there mainly to hold portal boxes and I wouldn't mind removing the section completely. It's just that I don't know if the boxes should be there or not.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall, nice easy-to-read article - prose is busy in places but this reflects the busyness of the nations and entities existing around the Adriatic. Will spot check soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Double-checking on copyright status, the origin of the base map and info for File:Adriatic Sea map.png would be good to add, as would the source of the info which provides the basis for File:Adriatic jadran.png, File:Adriatic Sea Bathymetry.svg and File:Adriatic Plate.jpg. Be good to sort this out as the images in the article are very good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what needs to be done, could you clarify a bit please? Should additional info be added in the Commons or in the article itself (in map caption or in some sort of markup)? Should the additional information provide sourcing for the map data or something else or something in addition?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aah, sorry, I didn't make that quite clear. Maps require (a) where the information came from which gave the information on a map (i.e. the distribution of a bird will have come from a page of a reference book, so that needs to be sourced and added), and (b) if some derivatory map, then the template's origin needs to be noted. This should be done on the commons page, which is transcluded on the enwiki info page anyway. See File:Banksia marginata map.png as an example. Folks have been checking on this at FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not quite sure how to do that on the Commons. Could you please point me to any image where I could see how to add the information or add that information for the bathymetry map yourself, so that I could do the same for the others? Sourcing for that map is as follows:
 * PS: I added the above info to Commons - could you please take a quick look to see if that's the proper way to do it? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the sourcing information for two of the images and added those to the Commons, while there was no obvious way to do the same for the remaining two - therefore I changed those for similar images where the information is available.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Guys, File:Adriatic Sea Geographic Map.jpg is clearly worse than File:Adriatic Sea map.png, and there's nothing actually wrong with the latter. Yes, it's not explained in detail - because it contains no copyrightable information that has to be explained - the basic topographical and political boundaries of territories are not copyrightable, nor are common toponyms like sea, gulf and city names. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Facts aren't copyrightable in the first place - but an expression of facts, or a compilation of them in many cases, is copyrightable. Moreover, this isn't just a question of copyright, but of citing sources - avoiding plagiarism, saying who's saying something about boundaries (e.g., Croatia/Slovenia; WikiProject Maps notes this), etc. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 11:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understood this as a matter of sourcing - who says that say, Adriatic/Apulian Microplate boundaries are there where they are depicted to be - and a matter of not using copyrighted material. For the former, I believe data is now in, and as far as the latter is concerned I cannot determine where does the infobox map come from. I also think this particular map is better than the geographic map taken from CIA Europe reference map, but I simply cannot determine where it comes from. If that is no problem, I'm happy to keep this particular map in. If it comes down to sourcing of names of geographic features named on the map, NOAA chart in the external links contains all those and may be cited at the Commons as sourcing for the geographic names as:
 * --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree about which is the better-looking map. Not a deal-breaker for GA anyway. I figure there must be a template on commons somewhere....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The compilation was uploaded as an own work in May 2005. I don't see any reason to doubt User:NormanEinstein - it certainly looks like a map that can be relatively easily hand-drawn. I also don't see any hint of plagiarism there - do you? None of the boundaries on that map are in any sort of dispute; the sea borders aren't drawn, and Kosovo is far away and irrelevant to the topic (and could easily be completely excluded together with Serbia if anyone thinks it's an issue). IOW, let's not make an issue out of nothing. If someone thinks the map has an actual problem, please don't beat around the bush and simply point it out. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the map is not a GA issue, I propose to redraw the map at some point between GA and FA reviews, just to be on the safe side - making it look pretty much just like this one here, plus sourcing - assuming that the map source is an FAR issue. How about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a safe option. Sorry, I've been sidetracked...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem... --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Spotchecking references - I don't think footnote 29 references " Finally, Venice is increasingly vulnerable to flooding due to coastal area soil subsidence" - soil subsidence and increasing rtisk aren't in that source. If they're both in the other then the ref probably should be removed, unless you want to add the specific flooding dates and levels. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that was in nr.28, but I found a better one (in English) and substituted #28 with it. Ref 29 needed to be moved forward few sentences to its correct position (now #25, making old #28 new #29).--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aah ok. I'll check a couple more before passing this, but we're nearly there.Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * refs 161 and 175 (and another couple) look ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: nice work - well on target for a crack at FAC. Can't see any outstanding prose or comprehensiveness problems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)