Talk:Caldas da Rainha/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've started reviewing this and made some comments, but I might take a while to finish - the article is far longer than anything I've reviewed previously. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Infobox
Other than that, it's looking good so far. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the logo's non-free use rationale is perfect. I'm sure you could replace the two "n.a."s with brief explanations of why the media is not replaceable, and why the logo doesn't compromise any market role. I would also disagree with the purpose of use in article stated - it's not really primary visual identification of the subject and not directly at the top of the article (three images precede it). It's there to inform the reader that Caldas has a logo and to show what it is - speaking of which, I can't find the logo explained anywhere. I haven't read the full article yet, but the word "logo" doesn't appear in the article outside of the infobox. I'd like some information on the logo - is it an official logo? Where did it come from, when was it made and what is it used for?
 * ✅ I added a short paragraph about the logo to the History section. I improved the fair-use rationale. I used the upload wizard when I uploaded it; the wizard added the "n.a."s itself and did not prompt for that info. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the same lines, the coat of arms is explained but I don't see anywhere where the flag is expanded upon. Similar to the logo, I'd like to know where it came from, when it was made an official insignia etc.
 * ✅ The principal element of the flag is the coat of arms. I've added some info. about the arms, but cannot find much else. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find a source for the municipal holiday being 15 May, although this is mentioned again in passing under "Transport". Is there a source somewhere for this?
 * ✅ Added ref. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The time zone section isn't sourced either, in the infobox or under the relevant sentence in "Geography".
 * ✅ Added ref. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

History
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 21:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "inhabited" really the best place to put a link to Lusitania? The first sentence could be rephrased along the lines of
 * ✅ Your wording is better. Thanks! —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd link to Óbidos, Portugal from the text  rather than in part of "caldas de Óbidos", or rephrase the sentence to link it from somewhere else.
 * ✅ Good idea. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * - Is the "it" supposed to read "its" (meaning "the city's")?
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The bracketed link to Municipalities of Portugal looks odd from "município" - would it be better to link it from "concelho", or from the whole bracket, or to just remove either one of the terms, as they are synonyms anyway?
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As town and municipality are linked, I would link city too.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "During the war" is redundant given the context and close phrase "During World War II" - remove.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the criteria for using italics here? It appears to be used only for Portuguese phrases, or is there some other reason for usage? If it is only used for Portuguese, the phrase "Escola de Sargentos do Exército" should be italicized.
 * ✅ Per Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting, "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English", but "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used..." To conform, I've un-italicized Regimento de Infantaria 5, since this is a proper name.
 * Forgive me if it's a stupid question, but why are the two smaller shields on the coat of arms "not in keeping with Portuguese heraldic rules"?
 * ✅ I'm unable to locate a good source, so I am removing this info. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the description of the coat of arms not following standard Portuguese rules original research? The earlier source in the paragraph is in Portuguese, but the Google-translated version didn't seem to mention, for example, the 8:7 ratio. Is there a source describing the coat of arms and how it differs from the norm?
 * ✅ Not OR, but I cannot find the source where I got that. Removing for now. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Geography
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref #35 ("As evidenced by the names...") might be better suited to a note format, with the two newspaper websites being references within the note.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (Second para) Is it worth having a wiktionary link to coterminous?
 * ✅ Good idea. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (Third para) I think linking area and perimeter is a bit much.
 * ✅ My disagreement with the MOS on this point is not strong enough for me to fight it. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the article explains the 12/16 parishes thing - I got slightly confused when articles like A dos Francos said "one of sixteen", but there were only 12 on the list. I've changed all "sixteen"s to "twelve"s in the articles for the parishes, but that's tangential to this article. Going back to the infobox, is it worth having the number "12" written next to the collapsed "Civil Parishes" parameter (change  value to 12)? It's more specific, might avoid confusion and certainly more helpful than the current word "List".
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (Note 3) "Researcher cannot find the law..." — what? "Researcher" as in "the person who wrote this Wikipedia article", or "person who wrote the newspaper article" or someone else?
 * ✅ I am the "Researcher". Removed this phrasing. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (Still note 3) If it's dubious that Alvorninha is a town, remove "town (vila)" and ref 49 from the table and have the note start off with (something similar to)  and continue on with the text in the existing note 3.
 * ✅ Thank you for the great suggestion. I struggled and failed to get this right on my own. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Demographics
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * References at the end of the first sentence should appear in numerical order.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "202.3 /km2" looks wrong to me: should there definitely be a space between the number and "/km2" (and "524 /sq mi")?
 * ✅ Indeed. There's something wrong with the undefined undefined template. I'll just hard code it. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The demonym "Caldenese" (and "Caldeneses") is unsourced.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate to sound pushy, but "Caldeneses" is still unsourced. If you can't find a source for it, just remove the plural bracket. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ You are tough taskmaster. :-) I found a better source that covers both forms. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Government
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "effectively the mayor" — is this statement sourced to anywhere? (I can't read ref 58 as it's in Portuguese.) It sounds like it could be original research.
 * ✅ Added ref. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The other members are" — I'd add a colon after this.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd link Freguesia (Portugal) and Junta de freguesia like this:
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * President should not be linked the second time it appears ("Monteiro Ribeiro is president").
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The penultimate paragraph ("Each of the 12 freguesias (civil parishes) has a...") seems to be highly repetitive; if there is any new information in there, merge it into the previous paragraph.
 * While I agree that the one-sentence paragraph is awkward, I cannot merge it with the prior paragraph, because of differing context (municipal govt vs parish govt). I have reworded it, in the hopes of avoiding repetitiveness. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. The section looks slightly weird now, but it's good enough. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added another sentence to the paragrah. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd approve of all the links in the last paragraph if they appeared individually. But looking at the paragraph as a whole, it's just a sea of blue. "France" (x2), "Spain", "United States" and the second appearance of "Angola" can be de-linked, at least. I might even remove "United States" altogether — it should be obvious to most that New Jersey is in the U.S. The other triple link,, also looks a bit weird to me, but I'm not sure which of the latter two, if either, should be de-linked or removed. Possibly, the countries could be put in brackets (e.g.  ;  ); it's just hard to get a scope of how many places are twinned to Caldas at first glance. Commas and semi-colons help, but they certainly don't catch your eye and it's a long, blue, hard-to-read list for me.
 * I have converted the prose into a bulleted list. I have de-linked duplicate occurrences. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. It looks much better. But (I forgot to ask this before) why are Coria and Badajoz on the same bullet point? The two places in France are given separate bullets, and Coria and Badajoz are two separate places whose articles don't even mention the other. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I was going with the formatting in the source. I've gone ahead and separated them. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Economy
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 07:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The penultimate paragraph might work better as a table, or possibly a list. Currently, it's very hard to read. The last two sentences could be placed either before or after the table.
 * ✅ I put the list at the end of the section to avoid visually breaking up the text. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Arts and culture
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 07:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it worth Wiktionary-linking expos, or writing out "exposition" on the first occurrence ("bridal expos")?
 * ✅ Linked to expositions (expos). —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove "topics as diverse as" in the second paragraph — this isn't a brochure.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Link ceramic art in the first sentence and de-link it from "ceramic pieces".
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Same thing with the link to sculpture.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The link to painting should be removed altogether.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If links to both cycling and bicycling are needed, move the former link to the first sentence like the others.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the next paragraph, move the ceramic link to the place in the prior paragraph where "ceramic" is currently linked to ceramic art.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Even useful articles" --> "Useful articles"
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Attractions
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 21:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not just relating to this section, but how are we dealing with the use of the terms "civil parish" and "freguesia"? After a few uses of, I would have thought it would be best to stick to one term or another. In Arts and culture, the latter term is used once, without mention of the former: "food from each of the freguesias is available". In this section, we start with "Attractions not mentioning a civil parish (freguesia)..."
 * ✅ I was hoping for guidance from the Manual of Style, but it did not offer much beyond to use foreign terms sparingly. I edited so that when speaking of location, rather than about governance, I use "civil parish" alone. When speaking of governance, I use "freguesia (civil parish)" in the first instance and "civil parish" thereafter. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, btw, I spotted a typo earlier on: "each freguesia has a an assembleia de freguesia" (under Government); this also shows another example of freguesia being used without mention of the phrase "civil parish". Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 21:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A case of potential overlinking: "The civil parish of Foz do Arelho has a beach on the Atlantic Ocean".
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Our Lady" is linked to Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic); would it be better to link to Titles of Mary, which discusses the title "Our Lady" in more detail? It's just a suggestion — I'm not really sure which link is best myself.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In this section, the phrase "thermal hospital" is used twice — at this point in the article, hospitals have been mentioned in the lead, briefly under "History" and regarding the Museu do Hospital e das Caldas (Arts and culture), with the last also using the phrase "thermal hospital". As the Thermal Hospital isn't properly discussed until later in the article, under Health and safety, I'm wondering if it's best to put a section link or explain somehow or just leave it. I also wonder whether "thermal hospital" is better than "Thermal Hospital", given that it's referring to a specific place rather than a type of hospital.
 * ❌ The hospital is mentioned in passing to set the location of other sites. I believe that the lead provides enough info. for the reader to figure out what it is. I would capitalize only when mentioning the full name. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is church another case of overlinking? Especially given that follows the more important link "gothic", and I often find that two consecutive links (like this) are slightly misleading as that give the impression that they are one link (like this).
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the third-from-last paragraph sourced to ref #130? It might be worth duplicating the ref, at the end of the paragraph as well as at the end of the next paragraph. (Although the website/ref doesn't seem to be working, at least not for me at the moment.)
 * ❌ The ref. is for Jardim de Água only. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then what is the rest of the paragraph sourced to? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find a good source for that information. In the meantime, recognizing that this is an essay and not a policy or a guideline: You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the last paragraph, de-link baroque: the link appears previously in the section. Also, the fountain link should probably be removed.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Demographics table
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The table you recently added looks fine, but is it worth duplicating note 1 again in the "City" cell?
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Transport
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are "regional" and "interregional" in italics?
 * ✅ They're Portuguese words which just happen to look like English words, but point taken. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph may be a bit over-incited (although I know that's just an essay). It looks a tiny bit cluttered — could we have ref #155 only used at the end of the paragraph, rather than 5 times throughout? Even if you removed ref #155 altogether, every sentence would still have at least one ref, so it's still easily verifiable.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Education
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The section is perhaps a bit long without images or tables. Could level 4 headings be added anywhere? For instance, a sub-heading for compulsory public education could be added.
 * I used to have subsections all over the place, but automated peer reviewer kept telling me I had to many sections, so I eliminated all subsections. I believe that adding a subsection here alone would cause an unbalanced look in the table of contents. Should I add subsections to other sections? Looking back at the state of the article at the end of last year does show too many subsections as well as too many stand-alone sentences, which I ended up combining. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the table of contents still looks fine with a single . But I see your point: do whatever you think looks best. It doesn't look bad without subsections. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph, ESB is the only bracket to use a semi-colon, rather than a comma.
 * Why does "[sic]" appear in the UCB bracket: I can't see anything spelled wrong, unless it's a problem with Portuguese spelling. (And personally, I would use Template:Sic with the link, for anyone who doesn't know what sic means.)
 * ✅ I've removed my pedantic [sic]. "Universidade Católica Portuguesa" properly translates as "Portuguese Catholic University", but the school prefers a different translation. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "...which offered courses in biotechnology" seems a bit redundant given that it's talking about the "Upper School of Biotechnology" — can the biotechnology link just be moved to that bracket?
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Same problem for the third paragraph as with the last Transport paragraph: the citations make it hard to read, and ref #169 is cited 6 times.
 * ✅ I removed all but the first occurrence of [169] —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the fourth paragraph sourced to? I know you've pointed out WP:BLUE before, but everything needs to be sourced somehow, even if not incited.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we need the whole lists of where the 27 schools and 28 kindergartens are? It's repetitive and I don't think it needs to be included. The refs still include the entire lists for anyone who needs to know.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Health and safety

 * Is the name of the heading the norm? I would have thought "Healthcare" or simply "Health" would be better.
 * The last paragraph (which at one time was a separate section with three one-sentence paragraphs) deals with fire and police protection, so not really health. There isn't a better existing section (not really government, especially the volunteer fire department). —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove the second link to physician.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sports

 * "...with peak years seeing six such events" — it took me a few seconds to get the meaning out of this clause. I think removing the word "such" would help.
 * ✅ I ended up removing the entire phrase, which I agree is awkward. I changed "between three and five" to "between three and six". —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable people

 * There's a "[sic]" used; if used for the same reason as the other one was, remove it. If not, use Template:sic or at least link to sic.
 * ✅ I guess that's just me being pedantic again. The guy isn't actually a saint. Removed. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Pope John Paul II created Policarpo a cardinal" — is this supposed to say "made" instead of "created"?
 * ✅ Cardinal (Catholicism) uses "created" several times. However, as Caldas da Rainha isn't a theological treatise, I'll simplify. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead
Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "western central Portugal": is "central Portugal" not specific enough?
 * I prefer to keep the greater precision. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Add a Wiktionary link to coterminous, as one appears later in the article.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I missed something, nothing is included from the sections Transport, Sports and Notable people. I'd probably say at least a couple of notable people deserve a mention in the lead, and you could cut back on the level of description for museums and educational institutions if the lead/one of the paragraphs starts to get a bit too long.
 * ✅ —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. All comments have been addressed. Pass for GA. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 07:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)