Talk:Cem (river)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 21:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and verifiability

Seems far off. Almost half of the article is unreferenced. I am placing this on hold. Kindly reference everything within the standard 7 day period. Thanks.
Note: Will resume once sources are added
ref [2], [5], [6], [7], [9], [31], [33]: page numbers needed.
Page ranges of journal articles, wherever missing, also need to be added.

Images

File:Tuzi Flag.svg: Source doesn't seem to confirm that the image is CC BY-SA 4.0
Rest of the images seem OK.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Anton Mayer (1957), Die Sprache der alten Illyrer is used to cite that the ultimate etymology of the name comes from Illyrian. The full quote is: Das adjektivische Suffix -uo- erscheint nicht nur an vokalische Stämme angeschlossen, sondern auch im Anschluß an Konsonanten, im Illyr. vornehmlich als Femininum -ua, aber auch als Neutrum: Bariduum (im Abl. -duo überliefert). Wir finden -ua in Ortsnamen [..]. Weiter in Flussnamen: Cinua, heute Cijevna.

I have added a statement by Nikollë Camaj, representative of the Municipality of Tuzi on the local news portal of Tuzi to cite the use of the river as a symbol of the emblem of Tuzi. The full quote is: Por, edhe si e tillë, stema e përzgjedhur përmban në vete elemente të pamohueshme identifikuese, kombëtare; Diellin, origjinën tonë, Deçiqin, sakrificat tona, Cemin, pasurinë dhe pastërtinë e shpirtit malësor, numrin, lashtësinë e qytetit tonë.

Winds: Kodhelaj (2019), Erërat lokale janë: Murlani (erë e thatë dhe e ftohtë), Shiroku dhe Juga (e ngrohtë dhe e lagësht).

Annual period of snowfall: Marojević (2014), Mesatarja e reshjeve të dëborës gjatë një viti është 40 ditë. Një matje tregon se rreth një viti janë numëruar 70 m shtresë dëbore

Clementiana: Šufflay (2000): Ime u XVII. vijeku vanredno moćnih Klimentinaca (alb. Klmen, plural Klmente) potječe od bizantinskog kaštela Clementiana, što ga spominje Prokopije, a koji valja tražiti na rimskoj cesti, što vodi iz Skadra u Prizren

I have added parts of the bibliography in multiple sections and added a couple of new sources. In which other sections should I focus in particular?--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Deciq: Verli (2014): Po kështu qarkullonte edhe informacioni për luftimet e 6 prillit pranë Deçiqit, për humbjet e osmanëve aty (30 ushtarë), por edhe të kryengritësve (7 vetë), ndër të cilët ishte vrarë edhe flamurmbajtësi Nish Gjelosh Luli; gjithashtu dhe lajmi se më 6 prill kryengritësit kishin ngritur flamurin kombëtar në majën e Bratilës së Deçiqit You will be able to verify this quote if you create a free account in the academic platform CEEOL (joint platform of journals of universities in the Balkans).
Cem of Vukël and Selca, part of the Kelmendi area: Odile (1989): "Au sud de Vermosh (2.188m), le long du cours inferieur du Cem, demeurait la tribu Kelmendi.
Cem as a borderland area between Venice, the Ottomans, Balsha and local communities: Fine (1994). The whole chapter is a general description of that period, I've bookmarked p. 515 in particular because it describes the arrival of the Ottomans.
@AhmadLX: I need some guidance as to what I should cite next. I haven't used a reference for every sentence, but they can be confirmed by other references in the same paragraph.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You should cite everything, unless it is common knowledge (like sky is blue or water formula is H2O). You don't need to cite every sentence. Iff all the information in a paragraph is supported by one source, you just need to cite it at the end of the paragraph. If different parts (not necessarily sentences) of a paragraph are supported by different sources then you should cite appropriate source for each part. But nothing should be left unsourced. Hope that helps. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing unsourced right now, but I haven't added the references at the end of each paragraph. Should I do that or is it ok if we proceed with the current placement?

Water supply in Roman era: Radulović (1997): The first organized water supply to the local population was recorded from the first to the sixth centuries . It was organized by the transport of the water from the river Cijevna to the city of Doklea ( Duklja )

--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX: I've moved sources around with the exception of a couple of points that sort of don't need a source like the fact that Podgorica is expanding in terms of households and thus turning into an urban agglomeration (a basic fact of modern demographics of Montenegro).--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no. You need source for that too. Or, if no reliable source is available, you will have to remove the statement. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX: All sources have been added along with all requested page numbers. I think that all sections now have adequate bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please give specific page numbers (eg. p=8) and not ranges (pp=8-14). Also, what is 14–8?. Page ranges are used for journal articles. Elsewhere, you need to specify page number where the information is found.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you read Wikipedia:Citing sources. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote 16-8, instead of 16-18. I think that page ranges are acceptable even when they're not used for journal articles. On Colorado River, a featured article, there's 20-page page range of a non-journal citation. @AhmadLX:: I converted Marojević (2014) to harv, so that you can verify it page by page. I can even copy the full quotes for every part you may not be able to verify yourself on google translate. --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The format 16-8 is discouraged on Wikipedia. What is on Colorado river article is not a standard or policy. Page ranges are for articles or when referring to a book as whole. When citing a part, page is given. Just add page numbers and I will translate myself. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX: I don't think that I have any other page range corrections to do or page numbers to add. I have converted the three main sources to harvnb.

Small hydropower in Nikç: Kodhelaj (2019) p.18: Ne degen Cem i Nikcit eshte i ndertuar nje hec lokal, por nje numur me i madh jane ndertuar dhe jane ne ndertim ne lumin Cem i Selces

Flora on Cem canyon: Mrdak/Hadžiablahović (2015) p.39: Kompletnu floru kanjona rijeke Cijevne obradio je Bulić (1994, 1993 (1998)) - u okviru Magistarske teze - koji na bazi sopstvenih istraživanja kao i literaturnih podataka navodi 813 vrsta, dok za kanjon u širem smislu navodi 959 vrsta vaskularne flore.

Uvalas and other formations: Mrdak/Hadžiablahović (2015) p.17: U kanjonu rijeke Cijevne i duž njenog sliva česti su hidrološki i geomorfološki oblici tipični za holokrast, kao što su uvale, vrtače, jame, pećine i ponori koji su jako izraženi u koritu gdje već prestaje kanjon.

Fluvial processes: Mrdak/Hadžiablahović (2015) p.16: Uz promjenjljive klimatske prilike kroz istoriju, na ovom prostoru su se formirali specifični geomorfološki oblici, počev od samog kanjona pa do raznovrsnih karstnih oblika i oblika nastalih radom erozivnih sila kao i ostataka glacijacije. Geomorfološke i hidrološke karakteristike kanjona su posljedica njegove tektonske strukture kao i tektonike neposrednog okruženja, kao i fluvijalna erozija i povlačenje lednika sa Prokletija. Geološku građu sliva rijeke Cijevne čine mase stijena koje po starosti pripadaju mezozoiku i kenozoiku

Streamflow increase in the canyon: Mrdak/Hadžiablahović (2015) p.20: U gornjem toku rijeka kroz kanjonsku dolinu ima veliki pad i odlike planinske rijeke sa slapovima, bukovima i brzacima, dok od ulaska u Dinoško polje - dio Zetske ravnice ima karakter ravničarske rijeke sa meandrima i manjim padom riječnog korita.

Cem's drainage basin southern "border" in Bogë: Kodhelaj (2019) p.18: Nga lindja kufizohet me vijen ujndarese te pellgut te Lumit te Lepushes, dege e Lumit Vermosh. Pas kesaj vija ujndarese kalon midis shkembinjve te Jamas, malit te Brinjes se Lisit 2263m, qafes se Dobraçes dhe mbyllet ne Boge ne lartesi 2062 m mnd.

I've provided quotes so you can do a quicker verification. All in all, the micromanagement I had to go through is not something that is specifically required by WP:CITE. It was necessary in the context of the article being reviewed by someone who doesn't speak at any level any of the two main languages used by bibliography. If you spoke either language, the seven-page range given for the twelve citations attributed to Marojević (2014) would have been more than enough to verify them in less than 5 minutes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look dude, providing verifiable information is your responsibility as nominator. Referencing doesn't mean to link to pdfs without further information. It is not reviewer's responsibility to check entire documents for you. You should consider the fact that I did not fail nomination straightaway although it qualified for WP:Quickfail. Now, that you feel so, I am glad to fail and you can find someone who speaks the languages for you.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using small page ranges in some parts because of multiple citations isn't a reason for quickfail when all other information about the bibliography has been provided. If you spoke any of the languages of the main sources of the article, you would be able to verify them very quickly. You shouldn't have tried to review an article with google translate in the first place. No matter how much micromanagement and quote copying I did on this talkpage, you still were relying on google translate, which is why we were going back and forth for a week about a range of six pages in a study because it's obvious that if you don't speak a language, you don't have the capacity to examine documents in depth in that language - let alone Environmental impact assessment studies. I'll renominate this with a note that the reviewer should be able to read at least one of the languages.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]