Wikipedia:Peer review/Port of Constanţa/archive1

Port of Constanţa

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for GA status.

Thanks, Mario  1987  08:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it will take a little bit of work to get it up to GA status. Here are some suggestions of things that might help. Hope this is useful. Dr pda (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to indicate where all the material in the article comes from, ideally by providing inline citations to reliable sources.
 * The title of the article (and of any redirect to the article) only needs to be bolded the first time it occurs.
 * I think the first sentence should clearly state where the port is. As the article stands, all I find out is that it is the main Romanian port, until I get down to "General info". A map along the lines of (a free version of course) would be good.
 * General info is a bit too informal for a section heading, however there is a more serious problem with this section, namely that it seems to be taken directly from and . This section needs to be rewritten to avoid violating copyright.
 * The satellite picture is nice, but a diagram showing the extent of the port, and perhaps its different components would be useful.
 * Regarding the satellite ports, is there any reason not to call the first section "Port of Midia", for consistency with its first sentence, and also with "Port of Mangalia"?
 * Is there enough content to warrant separate articles on these satellite ports? If not, remove the Main templates. Maybe these should be removed anyway since the articles don't exist.
 * "Other links" should be called "See also", per the layout guidelines. However it is not immediately clear why these articles are related, unless one has done some reading to find out that Tomis was the ancient name of Constantza, and that Dubai Ports is the sole owner of one of the container terminals. I would either incorporate these into the text, or just remove the section.
 * It might be worth providing alternative transliterations of Constanţa; Google searches give results for Constanta and Constantza.
 * In the History section the bulleted list should just be a sentence. Corn drier should be explained, or wikilinked if there is an appropriate article. Why was it the "official" beginning of construction? "Surface area" sounds a bit strange in this context. Why did the port decline after 1988? A quick google search reveals a 16 million Euro loan from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to build a new barge terminal. Is this worth including in the article. There were also a couple of explosions on ships in the port in 2001 according to some old BBC stories; are these also worth including?
 * Single years, eg 2007, should not be linked.
 * The first two paragraphs focus on the favourable geographical position of Constantza, however the lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, so maybe this could be moved into its own section.