Talk:Šipan

Trivia in history section

There seems to be an undue amount of trivia in the history section. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I see. It would really help if you could specify some of the trivia in the section. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 14:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The whole "Incidents" section, for a start. In what way are any of those incidents of encyclopedic interest?

How is the claim that someone was the world's youngest tanker captain of any importance to the article? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I will fix those issues, thanks. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 14:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I notice that some of the references are inadequately listed. Just one example, Elsevier is the publisher, not the research organisation as claimed in the content. The journal is not identified, nor the date of publication. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The issues from the example you mentioned have been fixed. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 14:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Chilicave (talk · contribs) 22:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey-o! Plan to review this article over the course of a few days.

Thanks! 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chilicave you doing the review yet? It's been 7 days without any information regarding this review. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jalapeño

My apologies! I was busier than usual, but I shall start today. Chilicave (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 15:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

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:

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

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

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

   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:

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

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Additional Comments

1. Which sources are these sentences derived from? Just questioning because I did not see a citation attached.

Later, during the French Revolutionary Wars, the British Royal Navy referred to Šipan as Zupano instead.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/16888/page/858. Though it refers to a "Zupana", it's close enough.

The house originally owned by Vice Stjepović-Skočibuha is still intact, and is centrally located in Suđurađ.

There are multiple images showing the house that is intact. A map of Suđurađ will also show its central location. But if you need a source for that, I'll look for it.

Yes, you must include a source even though there is pictorial evidence showing this or looks blatantly obvious. Refer to WP:V for further reading if you like - To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented.

https://www.traumhaftes-kroatien.de/insel-sipan/artikel/2658-sommerresidenz-von-vice-stjepovic-skocibuha in German.

2. How about the first paragraph of the Economy section? Which sources have you used for that?

Good catch. I found some new sources relating to the island's economy; sorry for not including them earlier.

My apologies, but you will notice that I'm a little particular about the choice of sources when grading an article. Source 20 (that you just included) does not look very reliable, since it links to an accommodation booking website. In addition to this, I don't see this source including any information about the earthquake and fire destroying Dubrovnik and economic decline during the Great Depression. Do you have anything for that?

I genuinely don't know. I'm going to look for a source for that, but if I can't find one, I'll remove that information.

3. There are two ports on the island, Suđurađ (Italian: San Giorgio) in the east, and Šipanska Luka (Italian: Porto Giuppana) in the west. Does this have a source too? Generally, the lead paragraph of an article does not necessarily have to have inline citations, but since you have included it, I want to verify.

https://rewinddubrovnik.com/what-island-should-i-visit-in-croatia-in-july/ This article may not be the most reliable but it does verify the text in the article.

This is a blog, not the best fit for a Good Article Nomination. Read WP:Blogs to further understand this better

@Jalapeño, I really think you need to take out some time to bring up this article to GA status. It is critical to provide sources for every piece of information that you include and that too, reliable. This would mean that I would have to fail the article or perhaps put it on hold. I am happy to help by providing you a full review of this article so that when you are ready to have it reassessed then you will be ready. If you are not satisfied though, we can definitely request a second opinion. Let me know how you would like to proceed. Cheers Chilicave (talk)

I think a full review of the article would be alright for me. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 14:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That, I can happily do. Please not that I may not go into extreme detail of everything. For that, you can definitely use WP:Peer Review. It's a great platform to ask editors to review your work and provide feedback. Chilicave (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's alright. Thanks! 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Full Review

Well Written?-

1. Overall, this is fine. Organization of information is clear with subheadings. A few adjustments can be made here and there. Under History, "In the second half of the 15th century, the Sagroević-Stjepović-Krivonosović-Skočibuha family is mentioned for the first time, which marks the beginning of the connection between Šipan and Dubrovnik." This sentence can be reversed to immediately introduce the topic of the paragraph. E.g. "The beginning of the connection between Šipan and Dubrovnik was established through the Sagroević-Stjepović-Krivonosović-Skočibuha family..." It gives the reader more clarity what the topic of the paragraph is.
2. Words like "skirmishes" is not very commonly seen. I would change it to "encounters" or "conflicts" for easy read for users.
3. Sometimes, adding wiki links to everything can be overwhelming. You can read MOS:Overlink. You can remove wiki links for common words such as "1463" and "tourism"

Verifiable?

1. no issues with formatting of sources
2. Need to make sure all information has a reliable source attached to it. If not, then this information either needs to be omitted (or a subtle calling to do some more research)
3. all information needs to come from a reliable source. Please read WP:RS to better understand what that entails. You can also post on WP:RSN if you are still conflicted about the reliability of a source.
4. Sources 7, 8, 20, 22 are are not reliable because they're travel/tourism websites.

Broad in coverage? - Looking at other island good articles, this article does cover various aspects and does not go off topic. However, I do feel that once more reliable sources are found then more information could potentially be added to the article.

Neutral?

No issues. Made a few copy edits that conflict with neutral tone.

Stable?

No issues.

"Images?"

- You do a good job with use of images. I will need to ask for a second opinion for copyright status though. Not sure how this works in Croatia.

- The lead image caption is this: Image of the center of Suđurađ showing houses and moored boats I think you should mention "Sipan" in the caption to clear up any confusion a new reader may have.

Chilicave (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The images are all own work, including the infobox image (which was shot on my iPhone 8). I don't see how copyright could be an issue there.

I will also mention Sipan in the image caption, thanks for pointing that out.

Keep going with the full review, thanks! 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, did some research and per COM:FOP Croatia you are allowed to have 2D reproductions of publicly displayed works. So your images work! Yay!

I actually had quite an interesting experience with copyright status on a particular image on an article. I learned a lot from that experience that's why I'm a little careful. Chilicave (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jalapeño I believe I am done with this review. Is there anything that you would like for me to address before wrapping things up?

No, thanks. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chilicave, since there's nothing more to address, could you wrap up the review? 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

alright! Will have to fail this article and you've made improvements you can definitely renominate it. Thank you for your patience! Chilicave (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Šipan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jalapeño (talk · contribs) 09:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Jalapeño: - the citation issues described below are quite severe. I'm going to pause the review to let you address them.

• @Jalapeño: thanks for the comments and improvements thus far. When do you estimate you will be able to address the rest of the issues re: sourcing by? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jalapeño please let me know when you will have time to work on this article; otherwise, I will have to close the review as unsuccessful in the next few days. If you need a delay, that's fine, it's easy to put it on hold for a week. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closing this review due to unresolved issues with no timetable for fixing them. However, if these issues are addressed, re-nomination would not be a problem in my view. Happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The house originally owned by Vice Stjepović-Skočibuha is still intact, and is centrally located in Suđurađ This sentence needs a citation.
	2b. 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).	For Glamuzina and Glamuzina, "Problematics" would probably be better translated as "Issues" or "Challenges". What makes Hrvaska.net a reliable source? Is the https://www.enciklopedija.hr/ encyclopedia a reliable source? Yes. The encyclopedia was created and has been maintained by the Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography. Ok, sounds good. TLDR History is certainly not a reliable source and should be removed. What does "Pseudo-Caesar" mean for the author? The citation can be improved to be clearer about author and translator. What makes dubrovackidnevnik.net a reliable source? Directly run by RTL Hrvatska, created by the RTL Group and owned by it until 2022. Sounds fine. Please add authors and publication dates to the citations where available. For the Gazette source, how do we know that Zupana = Sipan? Is this original research? The citation can also be improved by adding the publication date, page #, etc. Cite #11 (Vice) should be improved to give the website name and source (Project Lazareti) Cite #12 (Southeastern Europe) needs a page number, author, ISBN, publisher, etc. Cite #13 (Zaboravljeni) needs an author, publisher, website name, date, etc. There are similar issues of missing information for almost all the remaining citations, #s 14 through 24 at the moment. Please improve these so they are as complete as possible. What makes #16 (direct-croatia.com) a reliable source? Goravica.com just seems to be a random business' website. I'm not convinced it's reliable. Casamundo.co.uk is almost certainly not a reliable source. What makes total-croatia-news a reliable source? From their about page: It is a Google News-accredited site which is followed by a lot of the international media. We were delighted to bring the New York Times to Hvar in Summer 2017, as well as to be recommended by both The Guardian and The Sunday Times. In August 2017, leading Croatian daily, Jutarnji List, called TCN ‘the world’s most reliable information for Croatian destinations.’ I'm not convinced by that, it sounds like puffery to me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC) I'm not convinced that turistickeprice is a reliable source. In general, the heavy reliance on tourist + booking sites is not at a GA standard. These sites are trying to sell people on something and some of them are essentially just blogs or clearly written as PR. More scholarly books and reliable news articles are needed. Fair.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig suggests that this is a borrowed phrase There are two ports on the island, Suđurađ () in the east, and Šipanska Luka () in the west. I agree and it should be modified asap. Fixed. There's one other apparently borrowed phrase surround a dolomite depression but on inspection I think the source borrowed from Wiki rather than vice versa. However I do therefore recommend removing Source #7 (https://www.hrvaska.net/en/destinations/island-sipan.htm) and finding an alternative to avoid circular reporting / citogenesis. I've changed this phrase as well. Issues above addressed, hold for spot-check at end.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.