Talk:Arbus, Sardinia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 07:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I will be happy to take a look at this. Thanks to the nominator for the work that has been put into this entry. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the article, and unfortunately I have significant concerns with at least two of the six GA criteria (#1, which addresses the quality of the writing, and #4, which addresses the article's neutrality). These problems are serious enough that a full GA review is not appropriate right now. The article needs more editing, and then it can be nominated for GA status again. I would suggest that the nominator make a copyediting request at WP:GOCE.

It is obvious that some good work has been completed here, and I hope that it will be nominated again after some issues are addressed.

A line-by-line review won't be particularly helpful right now, but here are a few examples of the concerns.

Writing issues

• Expressions that lack precision, especially relative time references, may leave the reader confused (nowadays, present, current, latest figures).
• There are many grammar issues.
  • "Although town's name origin"
  • "artificial terracing build with"
  • "town's population had"
  • "can also prove his involvement not only, when it comes to this medicine revolutionary wave, strictly in science"
  • i.e. is misused several times.
• Some sentences are just way too long. By the ends of these sentences, the meaning may be lost to the reader.
  • "Located in the southwest coast ..."
  • "Furthermore Arbus territory ..."
  • "The first actual documentary evidence ... "
• Wordiness (extra words) also contributes to a lack of clarity.
  • "Arburesa kind of knife, a typical knife"
  • "reached and outnumbered 10,000 inhabitants" - Cannot outnumber without reaching.
  • "who still at times use the Sardinian language in order to communicate on a daily basis" - "At times" is different than "on a daily basis".
  • "a native-like or in any case high proficiency" - High proficiency and native proficiency can be quite different.
  • "Paradoxically, some sources suggest" - I don't think it's a paradox that education = more language skills.
  • "accordingly-named refounded province"
  • Words like furthermore, indeed and moreover are usually unnecessary.
• The article's layout should consist of headings that use sentence case.

Neutrality

• Non-neutral descriptors
  • "such a terrible state of things"
  • "such tasty ... ingredients", "after a so long time"
  • "definitely make for memories of the former"
• "really variegated and peculiar" - There is not even a source given for this.
  • "Remarkably, in the wide compositional spectrum"
• Editorializing
  • "It is for sure wise to say" - Wikipedia does not take positions on subjective concepts like wisdom.
  • "widely spoken in touristic facilities and also, most importantly, among teenagers" - why are teens most important?
  • "for sure deserve a mention" - Wikipedia covers a thing in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources; it doesn't weigh in on whether something is deserving of coverage.
  • "arguably considered to be the most important festival"

There are more examples of these problems in almost every section of the entry, but I hope that this gives the nominator a better idea of the range of concerns that I have. I hope that this is not discouraging. There is good work here, and I think a WP:GOCE request will help quite a bit. Thanks again for the work that has already gone into the entry. Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all I wanted to thank you for having taken up the review. I had already noticed some grammar slips and/or mistakes that needed to be addressed, but many other GA articles have similar mistakes and, in spite of that, full reviews of such articles are carried out. I might also point out that expressions like "town's name origin" seem to be grammatically correct to me, and I've even found some reliable sources with exactly the same expression used in them (e.g. https://books.google.it/books?id=zOzPQYkkbaAC&pg=PA198&dq=%22town%27s+name+origin%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLx_vYo_3uAhWUjaQKHdHcCGEQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22town's%20name%20origin%22&f=false). The same applies to both "town's population" (e.g. https://www.enfield-ct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/203/Population-PDF) and the use of i.e., used as stated, for instance, in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (e.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/i.e.). On the other hand, with regards to issues with the use of furthermore, indeed or other conjunctions, it seems rather encyclopedic to me, but I'll try to address this for future GA reviews. I'll also try to address the misuse of capitalisation throughout the article.--NicolaArangino (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: By looking at GA review criteria, which unarguably are the ones to be followed for any review, it is stated that "the prose [has to be] clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct". I reckon that the article, in spite of some improvable elements, is "understandable to an appropriately broad audience".--NicolaArangino (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Nicola. I moved them down here to the bottom of the review so that they aren't confused with my comments. As a reviewer, I have passed quite a number of articles that had some grammar issues at the start of the review. The difference in this case is the extent of the problems.

While not as serious a concern as the grammar errors, words like "furthermore" and "indeed" can contribute to a lack of neutrality, and this article already has some problems with that (the tone is too informal at times). Such words are avoidable; the sentence should mean the same thing without the "furthermore".

Phrases like "town's population" are not problematic themselves, but in most sentences they should have a definite article preceding them ("the town's population" - just like the four examples of this phrase from your link above). There are similar (not identical) errors in most sections of the article. This means that the spelling and grammar are not correct and, really, they are a long way from correct. These are issues that a reasonably careful native English speaker should catch, so I am confident that a GOCE copyedit will help. That's just not the role of a GA review.

I hope this helps you to understand where I'm coming from, and I hope you won't be too discouraged by this. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark and fast reply. Probably I reckon that it is pretty much down to how someone does interpret GA nomination criteria, since in the GA article reviews I'm carrying out (and gave carried out) I've always spotted similar mistakes but they usually did not mean, at least to me, an almost immediate failure of the review... I've often happened to come across even completely meaningless words, but in spite of this I've just pointed them out in the review and that was it. When it comes to the excessive use of "furthermore", "moreover" etc..., As well as to the use of way too long sentences, I'll definitely try to address the issue myself, I must have overlooked it, as well as the many cases in which impartiality is lacking. Probably I might have written myself way too long sentences, it is just a feature of my prose, which is rather Ciceronian, and which probably is not exactly encyclopedic with this respect. For sure it's also true that working on an article solely on my own can be complicated, a second pair of eyes can for sure be useful to spot mistakes and faults that I might have overlooked. In any case, thank you so very much for your review and opinion about the article, I'll try to follow the course of action you suggested.NicolaArangino (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)