Talk:Gibraltar/GA1

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is mostly very good and the article mostly follows the manual of style. The use of subsections within sections, particularly if they are very short, is discouraged. For example, the currency section should be included under the subsection on banking, and the subsections on cuisine and music should be weaved into the culture section better, to provide a more accurate and improved description of the cultural elements in the city itself.


 * There are a lot of external links at the end in that section. It might help to review WP:EL for tips and advice on pruning unnecessary ones. The TV, radio, media, and newspaper links are really not necessary if they're mentioned in the 'communications' section. Wiki-links in that section would then be used, instead of external links. The communications section as a whole is kind of a mess as it is -- it's really not very well organized and kind of jumps around a lot. There's a lot of very short "paragraphs", which is really makes the section look like a list in disguise.


 * There's also an external link in the education section -- external links should not be used in article text.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There's a couple of citations in the lead section, which is an indication that new material is being presented there. In fact, the lead section should be a summary of the article, with information being presented in appropriate sections, and cited in those sections.


 * A lot of information in the history section is uncited (very skimpy citations used on very random facts). Then, there's six citations on one statement in paragraph three, which seems a bit of an overkill there.


 * Citations should be placed at the end of sentences and/or punctuation, such as commas. The punctuation should never be placed before the citation. All citations should also have full information -- author, title, publisher, date of publication, and, if it's available on the Internet, a date the URL was last retrieved and/or checked. It would also help to write out dates (for dates of publication or retrieval) in a more human-readable format, instead of numerically (e.g. 6 November 2007 instead of 2007-11-06, which could be easily confused with 11 June 2007).


 * Please address any and all 'citation needed' tags in the article as well.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article contains most of the main sections that are expected for an article about a nation, or province. Though some sections are very short, such as Sport and Healthcare.


 * The Education section also really doesn't mention any of the prominent schools in Gibraltar -- are there any Universities? Notable primary/secondary schools? This should probably be covered somewhere.


 * I'd also change the title of 'Politics' to 'Government' or 'Government and Politics'. The sections on Police & Military should probably fall into that section as subsections as well.


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I can't find any major WP:NPOV issues in the article, but I'll take a closer look once the other issues are addressed.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Most of the recent editing seems to have been done by two primary editors. No major signs of edit-warring or reverting.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The images of the flag, coat of arms, and and the government/mayor coat of arms have invalid copyright tags. They are tagged as being in the public domain, which is not the case. Copyright is owned by the government. These need to be appropriately tagged, and a fair-use rationale template should be added.


 * The schools comparison image has a tag on it that indicates that categories are needed.


 * Images have captions, but some of the captions are pretty long (see history section images). Try to shorten some of these to be more concise.


 * There's three images of the Rock of Gibraltar in the geography section -- two on the left and one on the right with the map beneath it. This seems like a tad overkill. I'd pick one of those images and leave the rest in the Rock of Gibraltar article.


 * Four images in the politics section is a bit heavy as well, and could present display issues for people with small monitors. The image of the parliament building is probably sufficient for this section alone. I've already addressed the overkill in the Rock image, and I would think that the images of the Prime Minister and Governor really aren't needed here (if people want to know what they look like, they can click on their articles).


 * The multiple images in the demographics section, none of which actually display people, are probably better if included in the culture section, which would then allow you to expand that section and discuss some of the cultural points of interest. I guess these are images of churches, but then again, they appear before the discussion on religion, so are still somewhat out of place.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I believe that the core of the article is mostly in place, but a lot of work is needed to really bring this up to GA standards. It's probably at about the level of C-class at the moment, so I could technically fail it. However, since there appear to be two editors that are taking an active interest in it at the present time, I'll put it on hold until 6/22/2010 (two weeks), so that these issues may be addressed. WTF? (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, WTF?. Hopefully we can all chip in to make the improvements you list.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is already being reviewed so I will let it take its course. While I have not studied the article extensively, I must say that the article is in generally good shape and getting GA is close, in my opinion. TeacherA (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

After over a month being on hold, many issues still remain, and I'm not really seeing evidence of a coordinated effort to improve the article (the article's edit history, in fact, shows a lot of reverting, which goes against the stability criterion). So, this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time, and will be removed from the nominations list. It can be renominated once the issues mentioned above have been dealt with. In the meantime, it may help to review the guidelines under WP:COUNTRIES, as well as some of the other nation and/or city articles currently listed at WP:GA. WTF? (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)