Talk:Tragedy of Otranto/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll review this article shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Review
 * Please be sure that all quotes have a citation directly after them. I tagged a few and I'm happy to see that you fixed them. There are some more though, so could you look through the article and put the citation after every use of quotes?
 * I think the article is well done, but there are places where it could be more clearly worded, as not everyone is knowledgeable about the problems in the Balkans and how they related to Italy, though your map is very helpful!  I'll try to supply some specific examples. I put some links in to help out.
 * Do you have any suggestions on how I could expand the "Balkan area" part? I don't think talking about the Yugoslav war would help because it was unrelated and the Kosovo war started a year later. What is it that readers might want to know?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * I agree that the Yugoslav war doesn't need expansion. I think my problem was that I didn't understand why there was emigration in 1990 and 1991 and than not again until 1997. It must have been a huge pyramid scheme if it led to boat loads of emigrants. Surely there was more going on? Maybe not.
 * I'll add more comments if warranted. But overall, a good job! Each time I read it, it becomes clearer. I've just run out of energy but I'll finish this soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * more comments
 * "local intellectuals called rapsods who tried to relate the mythistory of kurbet before World War II with the mass migration through a shared emotionality" - be careful you aren't unintentionally copy pasting - this phrase is close to the wording in this article.
 * in what court does the law suit take place? How did they decide who had jurisdiction? Was it a UN court or what?
 * I don't think there was a UN court which made a ruling on the situation. I think what the UN said was a reaction to the event. SInce this happened before the court proceedings, I put it in ahead of the cases.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * also the news coverage immediately after the collision should be mentioned before the court case to keep things in chronological order. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I made some moves here and there. Tell me what you think. (Link).--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * But what court did the "legal proceedings" take place in? What court had jurisdiction? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I found a source specifying it. Do you think it is okay? (Link)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply
 * I think so. Your's an important article. I think it's fine and very good.  MathewTownsend (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * "After eight years of proceedings, the Court of Brindisi convicted both the Italian and Albanian captains of "shipwreck and multiple manslaughter" - this is copied word for word from the source.
 * This is the second instance of this I've found, and I haven't looked closely. I'm concerned this article contains close paraphrasing and plagiarism.
 * This source says that 58 people died in the accident.
 * I can't find many sources agreeing on the number of dead. 58 seems to be the number recovered so far and most of the rest say that the toll is close to 83. This issue was brought up when it went through the DYK review and the reviewer concluded that 83 should stay. In any case, the monument in Otranto contains pictures of 81 people who died. Most Albanian news sources say the number is 84 while some 24 are still missing. And there's one source which goes down to 52, but this is based on the numbers recovered on the first day. I think it's clear that the number is above 80, and I thought the source saying 83 was the most reliable. I will do a bit of synthesis (which I won't put into the article) and assume that 58 is the number of bodies recovered and 24 is the number of bodies missing. Once added together, the number comes up to 82, seeming to confirm a number close to 83. What do you think? (Also, I will go back and look at every sentence to make sure plagiarism is avoided.)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some of the edits I made to avoid plagiarism: Link). Tell me if you see some more issues.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * ok to the above
 * Background section
 * It says "17,000 landing in Bari in August 1991, and 15,000 in early March 1997"
 * Then later it says "n 1997, a crisis erupted in Albania after the collapse of several investment pyramid schemes which resulted in social deterioration in the country in the beginning of March" - isn't this a repetition of the 15,000 in early March 1997?

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so because most of the social disturbances were riots, uprisings, etc. which resulted in outward migration. Do you think this should be clarified in the article?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations! Nicely done. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great review!--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations! Nicely done. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great review!--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations! Nicely done. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great review!--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Nicely done. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great review!--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)