Talk:Gela

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gela/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 09:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hello, I'll be the one taking up this review which I will present shortly. Hopefully, my feedback will be helpful. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Dr Salvus, hey so I've completed the review. If you have any questions feel free to communicate them to me here or on my talk page. I would suggest looking at other good articles or articles of larger more developed articles to get a hang of what a well developed article should look like and using their structure as a model to develop this article for a later re-nomination. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The article has issues with the manual of style and requires some proofreading as well.
Neutral

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Some copyediting is required.	Neutral
(b) (MoS)	The article is not complaint with the manual of style in certain aspects.	Fail

2. Verifiability: The article is verifiable but a number of sources may not be reliable.
Fail

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	There is a list of references and all lines have in-line citations.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	There are issues with the reliability of a number of the sources.	Fail
(c) (original research)	No original research was found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright issues or plagiarism found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is not comprehensive.
Fail

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article is not comprehensive, it lacks information on a number of major aspects.	Fail
(b) (focused)	The article remains on topic, no coatrack issues were found.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral for the most part.
Neutral

Notes	Result
The article is complaint with the policy on neutral point of view except one issue, see comments.	Neutral

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No ongoing content disputes, edit warring, etc were found.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images are tagged with their appropiate copyright statuses.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Suitable captions are present.	Pass

Comments

Before anything else, there are a number of major issues with the article that needs to be looked into. I'm failing this nomination for the time being, primarily due to the lack of comprehensiveness in the article. The assessment table provided above should give a better idea in what areas the article is lacking and in what areas the article fulfills the criteria of a good article. I will list a number of points with more specificity in reference to the issues which prevent the article from fulfilling the good article criteria. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Issues with comprehension: Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of red-links in the article, they will either need to be changed into blue links or de-wikilinked.

 Done Dr Salvus 12:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• • The article needs proofreading and copyediting. There are a number of spelling mistakes, typos, etc in the article, for example "mediaeval ages", "cityuntil", "was confiscated and was assigned".
  • The section called "Main sights" reads like a travel guide. Most of it could be incorporate into a well developed article as features of the city but not in this form.
  • There is a bracketed portion in History called "(see Sicilian Expedition)", this should be incorporated a part of a sentence, something like "During the Sicilian Expedition, Gela fought the..."
• The following sources may not be reliable, some of them are blogs. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comuni-Italiani.it, unclear if this is a government site or an information agregator. If it the latter, it is unlikely to be a reliable source.
  • gelabeniculturali.it, appears to be a blog.
  • storiafacile.net, appears to be a blog.
  • Bethel Bed and Breakfast, hotel reservation site, equivalent to a self published source.
  • storiain.net, appears to be a blog.
  • adviceandresearch.blogspot.com (Division Livorno counterattack at 1943 Gela landing), blogspot upload.
    • I may have missed some, in general one should avoid blogs or travel sites and instead make use of scholarly works such a journals and books or at least newspapers and in some cases government sites. I would recommend looking at the other good articles of cities to get a better idea of what kind of sources should be used. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just deleted these non reliable sources Dr Salvus 13:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• One of the primary issues is the article is that, it doesn't have much more other than its history other than a small section on geography. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The article lacks any information about the economy or infrastructure of the city.
  • It lacks any information on government and politics.
  • It lacks any information on culture, religion, sports, etc.
  • It lacks any information on tourism, it appears to be a somewhat notable tourist designation.
  • It lacks any information on demographics in the city.
  • The history itself could be expanded.
• Other issues: Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a mention of a "tyrant named Cleandor" in the article. This is likely an NPOV violation, it needs to be stated from who and where he is described as a tyrant and the activities that he indulged him which led him to be described as one.