Talk:Tampa, Florida/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mcorazao (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning the review. Here are some initial observations:
 * Overall looks like a very nice article.
 * Lead section:
 * The lead section doesn't really comply with WP:LEAD which says the lead should summarize the article. There is nothing about the history, the culture, or most other sections.
 * It spends a fair of space giving stats on the metro area even though that is not the topic (see WP:TOPIC).
 * References:
 * There are a few paragraphs that are missing citations entirely.
 * The references have several bare URLs (URLs with no other information). Several others have very little information. The best thing is to use the and fill in as many of the fields as possible (see WP:Citing sources for minimum requirements).
 * There are references to whole books without page numbers.
 * Some duplicate references.
 * The History section is really long. I would recommend creating a separate article for the history and summarizing the history in this article. I would recommend reducing the whole section to perhaps a dozen or so paragraphs.
 * Avoid trivia (e.g. the tidbit on the Wikipedia servers is interesting but does this imply that Wikipedia is one of the largest players in the Tampa economy?).
 * For the "surrounding communities" it is best to use the template. This is normally used at the end of an article.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional concerns:
 * Fair use image violations: Tampa Snow.jpg. Additionally some images have incomplete information for proving fair use: Hernando de Soto 1881.jpg (no publication details on Young Peoples' Cyclopedia and since the claim is based on the author's lifetime there is no information about the author); Fortbrooke.jpg (author is claimed to be a Wikipedia user and the source is claimed to be Wikipedia); TampaFranklinStreetNorth.jpg (since the date publication can't be stated with certainty how do we know it is before 1923); etc.
 * Inline URLs like . This is not allowed. External links must go in the External Links section at the end of the article (excepting the URL for the entire city).
 * The economy section feels a little light in its coverage. Some business sectors are listed but are these the largest or are these simply some arbitrary list of some of the larger sectors. Ideally the section should give a more concrete picture (e.g. the n largest business sectors are ...; the n largest employment sectors are ...).
 * Be careful about statements such as "St. Petersburg has earned the distinction as the 'Birthplace of Scheduled Air Transportation'." The statement implies that this is a widely recognized distinction rather than just something the Tampa Bay area takes pride in. If that is true then it really needs to be backed up clear with references (or else rephrased).
 * "Since Tampa Bay was first spotted by Spanish explorers in the 1500s, sailors have admired its wide, sheltered beauty." This a very broad, peacock statement. The statement would seem to imply by and large most sailors coming through the area have considered the bay unusually beautiful. If there are really sources that indicate research has been done to assess the opinions of sailors throughout history this should be included. My guess is that this is not the case making the statement OR.
 * Why is there a "See Also" link to Small Business Development Center at the University of South Florida? That article doesn't exist (and seems a little trivial anyway).
 * See if the images can't be moved around a little so that they don't cross between sections as much (makes the layout better).
 * Be careful about statements such as "In March 2003, Condé Nast Traveler magazine ranked the airport #1 in the US and #3 in the world for its creativity and interior design." in the Infrastructure/Airports section. It is good that you are citing opinions of an authoritative source. Nevertheless, what is the point of having this statement here? It seems like its only role is promotional (such statements might be appropriate in a section on architecture of the city or some such thing).

I'll hold off further reviewing since I think that gives enough to work on. The biggest concerns are the referencing and fair-use rationale for the images. If these things can be addressed in the next few days I'll take another look.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Though there have been a few improvements in the last few days it looks like none of the editors is available to spend the time to bring it up to GA standards right now. Hope the above comments at least help. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)