Talk:Parliament House (Malta)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 22:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review; I apologize for the delay in someone picking up this article for review. I should have my comments up by the end of the week at the latest. Aoba47 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

 * The lead should be a comprehensive overview of all aspects of the article. The lead does not address the “Planning” or “Controversy” sections so add in information that set up these topics.
 * I appreciate how direct and matter of fact your sentences are so great work with that!

Site

 * Change “the station and other buildings” to “the station and surrounding buildings”
 * I would combine the last two paragraphs together as they are both talking about the reconstruction and conversation of the buildings. Shorter paragraphs with only one or two sentences can make the article look choppy and lack focus so I would caution you against doing this in the future. The actual content is great, but it would be improved by making it one larger paragraph instead of two shorter ones.

Design and construction

 * This comment applies to all the images in the article. Make sure the image has an alt and is presented as “upright”
 * Change “formed part of the City Gate project” to “was a part of the City Gate Project”
 * Replace the phrase “the building of the fifth City Gate and the Parliament House instead” to “the construction of the Fifth City Gate and the Parliament House” as it is much more direct and concise. Remove the comma after Freedom Square Arcade too.
 * Who paid Piano for his work on the project? Was it the Malta government? If possible, please specific here.
 * Change “considered it as an unnecessary project” to “considered it an unnecessary project”
 * Did critics of the Parliament House cite any specific alternatives? You briefly mention the “other large palaces in Valletta”, but you do not say any specifics. This is more of a suggestion to expand the section and is not required if there is not enough information to answer this.
 * Any information on the changes made to the original plan? What exactly were the changes? It is always helpful to be specific and avoid vague language whenever possible. As this is a relatively short article, I want to point out areas that could possible be expanded.
 * The “Construction” subsection should either all be one paragraph and the first three paragraphs should be combined into a single paragraph. I do not see the point in separating one or two sentences into its own paragraph. It makes the information appear choppy and not fully expanded.
 * Expand on the final sentence in the “Inauguration” subsection. Who called the Parliament House "Piano's masterpiece" and why? What aspects make it a masterpiece? Have the critics of the building's construction changed their minds about it or is public opinion on the building still divided? These questions need to be answered as your sentence right now is very vague and does not adequately cover the material you are citing. This is something that needs to be addressed.

Structure

 * As I said before, make sure the images are presented “upright” and have an alt.
 * Otherwise, great section here with very good sources.

Gallery

 * Wikipedia highly discourages galleries in articles so remove this section. As this is a rather short article, I would advise you to be selective with the images and only two to three images where appropriate as you do not want the images to overwhelm the text. You may move the gallery to wikicommons, but it is appropriate or helpful to the article.

Final comments

 * Again, I apologize for this page not being reviewed soon. I have two primary concerns about the page, which I have addressed in my comments. The first one is there are some issues of adequate coverage of your topic. I feel there are some points you can expand your research and should further explain some points (such as the sentence about “Piano’s masterpiece”). This is important as the article is relatively short so you want to avoid any vague language or gaps in knowledge. The second issue is with the gallery as it is not permitted on Wikipedia and must be deleted. Overall, the article is very strong and once my comments are addressed, I should be able to pass this quickly and easily. If you have any questions or comments about my review, please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize for not reviewing the page earlier. I have a couple of comments re the above:
 * re "Did critics of the Parliament House cite any specific alternatives?" - this source mentions that "opponents say that Valletta has plenty of other large, crumbling palaces which could easily be restored and converted into a parliament". If I recall correctly, there was a suggestion that the parliament could be moved to ≤Fort Saint Elmo - I'll see if I can find sources to support that.
 * re the "masterpiece" - I removed that sentence and replaced it with "On 1 August 2015, Piano visited the Parliament House for the first time since its inauguration." (although I don't know if that is notable enough to be included in the article). Time will tell if the building is considered a masterpiece or not, and better sources might be available in the future.
 * I archived the sources as you suggested. Thanks for informing me re the policy on galleries (which I was unaware of), I'll try to avoid them in future articles. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I think it would add to the article if you could find a source and add in the information about Fort Saint Elmo, but I understand if that is not possible as it is fine as it currently stands. I am just offering suggestions that may help improve the article, which is already good. I was also unaware of the policy on galleries (I recently noticed it for a review of another architecture article). I think it was a good idea to replace the sentence about the "masterpiece" with the current one. Great work on the article; it looks really great and it is a very informative read and makes me want to learn more about Malta. Let me know when you are done with the revisions and I will give the article one last review and most likely pass it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I found this source about St. Elmo, and I added a mention of the fort in the article. Thanks for taking time to review this article :) Xwejnusgozo (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article looks great and thank you for taking the time to put together a really great page. You have done a lot of great work and I have learned a lot from this review. :-) This is a definite ✅. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, 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):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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: