Talk:Enugu/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems with sources
Hello! Using checklinks I have found several broken links in the article. The broken references are as followed: 44, 55, 67, 68, 70, 97, 112, 117, 118, 120, 125 (as of the August 25, 2010 edition of the article.) I have not yet completed my review of the article, but those links need to be addressed in the mean time. Thanks! --Tea with toast (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced alternative name
In the infobox an alternative name is written: Énúgwú Ngwọ. Also, within the article, in the first paragraph of the Modern history section, the following is written: "....Enugu Ngwo as it was known then, became a major coal mining area...". There are no reliable verifiable sources provided to back up the inclusion of the alternative name. Reference No 13, which is used as a source in the first paragraph of the Modern history section, leads to a source which mentions the word "Ngwo" twice, however in neither of the two cases is the existence of an alternative name of "Enugu Ngwo" mentioned. As long as the alternative name "Enugu Ngwo" remains unsourced it can be assumed that this is original research. Amsaim (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Enugu Ngwo is noted in this source for being the village of which coal was found beside. The source also explains the meaning of the name of the city which is spelled enu egwu in Igbo, used for Énúgwú (I've removed Ngwọ as this was a mistake). The Igbo language uses an orthography that requires accents. The article goes on to explain that the cities name that is located beside the Enugu Ngwo was later changed to Enugu Coal Camp to differentiate it with this village. I've change the text to "the Enugu Ngwo area" so this village would not be confused as the city and it would be indicated as a settlement established before the city. Ukabia - talk 16:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion
Thank you, Ukabia, for your hard work. I am pleased with the work you have done in fixing the references. There is one possible problem with the grammar of the text of the article, and for that, I will be requesting a second opinion from another editor. There are multiple occurrences in the text where dependent clauses are not separated by a comma. For example,

"In 1938 Enugu became the administrative capital of the Eastern Province"

By my American English upbringing, a comma should be placed after "In 1938". But I'm wondering if it is a British English trend to loose the commas for short clauses such as the one in the example. This is not the first time I've come across an article written in British English that does not use commas in these cases, so I'm wondering if it is more than coincidence. --Tea with toast (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would consider the date to be a parenthetical phrase, and so if the date appears at the start or end of a sentence does not need a comma, though if it appears in the middle would need a comma before and after. So:


 * "In 1938 Enugu became the administrative capital of the Eastern Province."
 * "Enugu became the administrative capital of the Eastern Province in 1938."
 * "Enugu became, in 1938, the administrative capital of the Eastern Province."


 * Having said that, I would not consider the use of a comma after the date at the start of the sentence to be a hindrance to meaning and so not worth removing. I see it as largely personal preference. If the meaning is not altered, then it doesn't matter - so:


 * "In 1938 Enugu became the administrative capital of the Eastern Province."


 * and


 * "In 1938, Enugu became the administrative capital of the Eastern Province."


 * mean the same thing, and do not cause any confusion for the reader. I hope that helps.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been nothing posted here in a few weeks. Is the review done? Is the article at a stage of passing/failing? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's up to the reviewer (Tea with toast (talk)), the second opinion has been acknowledged and any issues have been solved. I've left a message on the reviewers talk page, but there's no reply yet. Ukabia - talk 19:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
As the original reviewer has abandoned, not responding to messages, despite being active at present, I have reviewed the article. The original reviewer's concerns have been met, there are no outstanding objections from the second opinion, so I am happy to close this as as a pass. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry I didn't realize what was going on. I thought the person giving the second opinion was responsible for passing/failing an article. I'm very sorry to have caused long waiting and extra work for people. But I'm glad to see it passed! Good work Ukabia! --Tea with toast (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)