Talk:Augustów Canal/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

There are thirteen external links - are these all needed, and in line with EL criteria? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the description of the canal in table format? That doesn't appear to be an appropriate use of tables, and so falls foul of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, which is part of GA criteria 1 (b): "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation". The description would be more helpful if explained in prose as it would allow "the presentation of detail and clarification of context". What is "0.35-10.95 Canalized Netta River" supposed to mean to the general reader? What happens to the Augustów Canal at that point? And why when I go to check the sources regarding Netta River can't I find Netta? Is there a different spelling in Polish? And why is there a Wiki-link to an article on a duck (Netta) rather than on the river? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sorted the link to Netta (river). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of short subsections in the History section - this inhibits flow and makes the article look cluttered. See WP:BODY, a section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, which is part of GA criteria 1 (b). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is not always clear, and the use of capitals needs attention - see WP:Job titles. There are number of sentences that don't quite make sense, example: "According to the decision of the Polish Minister of Culture and the Arts from 21 December 1968 the Augustów Canal on the section from Augustów to the state border with the infrastructure: locks, dams, bridges, housing banks, building maintenance services, environment, landscape and plant was declared a monument of technology Class I.[8] Then, on Feb. 9, 1979, the Voivode's decision Suwalki Augustów Canal for its entire length was entered in the register of monuments." The article needs focussed copy-editing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors may provide assistance. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

There is some work needed on the formatting and presentation of the article; I will put the article on hold for an initial seven days to allow that to take place; then I will look into the sources, the neutrality, and the accuracy and range of the coverage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turn the tables into prose.
Present the History section in a more readable form. (Reduce the number of sub-sections).
Copyedit for clarity of meaning and readability; and check that capital letters comply with WP:Job titles.
Check the external links to ensure they are all needed and comply with WP:EL.

Give me a ping if the work is done with seven days, or if there are any questions or queries. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An email was sent to the nominator yesterday, advising that I am prepared to keep the review open longer if they are busy. No response yet. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects informed. I am expanding hold for another seven days to allow people time to respond. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I doubt whether we could turn tables into good and readable prose without losing much of the kilometre-related information. The present format seems nice for me.
As for the history section, I wonder, why not turn those small subheadings into the real subsections? They seem to be well-structured as it comes to different periods in the history of the canal.
As for the copyediting and checking ELs, unfortunately, I can't help much, since I'm not a native English or Polish speaker. GreyHood ^Talk 21:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close - not listed[edit]

No work has been done, and there has been no communication from the nominator, so I am closing this as unlisted. The article can be nominated again in future, though it would make sense to give the article a copy-edit first, and to turn the tables into meaningful prose. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]