Talk:Brunswick, Georgia/GA2

GA Review (2nd)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello there! Here is my critique of Brunswick, Georgia: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The quality of writing in this is very high. There are no glaring grammatical or spelling errors, but there is quite alot of grammatical redundancy. Try to avoid using vauge terms like "also", "several", "many", “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “a few”, “any”, and “all”. These are often unnecessary and redundant - For example, "Brunswick is also the center of Georgia's shrimp and crab industry; the city was once called The Shrimp Capital of the World due to the many wild shrimp harvested in its local waters." (See also Tony1's redundancy exercises.) This makes for a more punchy, factual, professional encyclopedia. It's at pass level here, but for FA a sure fail.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Broadly the article is mos compliant. However there are a couple of fairly minor formatting issues. The two most striking issues relate to WP:OVERLINK and WP:EGG, but also enboldening and italics:
   1. There is alot of overlinking of full dates. "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so." It's unlikely readers will need to navigate to articles like February 22 from here.
   2. In the lead "The Shrimp Capital of the World" is italicized, but it's not a human work, and instead should perhaps be in quotation marks (see WP:ITALICS).
   3. There are alot of instances of pipelinking local articles to broader terms. This is particularly noticable and problematic in the lead. Phrases like "Its metropolitan area", should be changed to "The Brunswick metropolitan area" per WP:EGG (I thought I was going to navigate to the main metropolitan area article). Another example is "during the Civil War", when "during the American Civil War" would have more context to a non-US reader like myself. Same goes for "colonies" -> "Thirteen colonies". On the flipside, please check that specific articles are not pipelinked with a broader term, whilst where a specific article exists, please direct us to it (in Demographics, change "census 2000" to "the 2000 United States Census").

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Referencing appears to be very good, however, there are several problems with external links. Have a look at this tool. All content needs to be verifiable at GA level, so this is a barrier to success.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No problems here for a GA pass, but I'm wondering if there is any known history of what was happening in Brunswick before it was founded? Perhaps something about American Indian activity? Ancient geological events? A sentence or two would suffice IMHO.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Focussed, yes. But quite U.S.-centric in parts, a major criticism of Wikipedia. For example, "incorporation"? Could this be explained? Is "city" status honorific in this part of the world? Does it have any value or change anything for the inhabitants of Brunswick, such as self governance?
   Regarding "was founded in 1771 by the Province of Georgia and incorporated on February 22, 1856", can places in the US only be incorporated as a city? if not, then city should be mentioned too in the lead.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No problems here, however, free-to-use images should generally be moved to Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons. Having them here at Wikipedia limits their use to the English language encyclopedia only. This isn't a barrier to GA, just good practice for the good of the project.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'd say this is almost at WP:GA standard. Just a couple of small issues need sorting first. As such this article is placed on hold. Good luck with improving this article!

--Jza84 |  Talk  13:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. It's been a few weeks now and no sign of any activity to fix up the aforementioned issues. As such, unless I hear otherwise, I plan to move the article from "On hold" status to a GA fail within the next 24 hours or so. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Terribly sorry to have had to fail this. I haven't had any indication this is going to be picked up, and with the progress of this article unclear, and issues with MOS and verifiability, I have failed Brunswick, Georgia against the GA-criteria. I'm confident this article can hit GA in the future should these issues be addressed. Good luck, --Jza84 |  Talk  18:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)