Jump to content

Talk:Bucentaur/Archive: GA review

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Just a few small quibbles on prose and I'd like to see a bit more in the lead.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

  • The first sentence is a bit convoluted, specifically the "on which, every year on Ascension Day up to 1798, they put out to the Adriatic Sea" Consider rewording, perhaps to "which was used until 1798 on Acension Day to take the Doge into the Adriatic Sea to ceremonially wed Venice to the sea." That's not perfect, but gives a start. You might also break it up into two sentences.
    • Fixed. — JackLee 24 November 2024 10:59 (UTC)
  • The lead is a bit skimpy, especially the first and last pargraphs which are short. Consider expanding those a bit?
  • Lead, last sentence of the second paragraph, perhaps "The ship was destroyed in 1798 on Napoleon's orders.." but that's not required. I think it flows better that way, but won't hold the GA up on this one.
    • Fixed. — JackLee 24 November 2024 10:59 (UTC)
  • Okay, a bit of overlinking going on here. I don't hink we need to link analogy, ox, lagoon, nobles, decked, velvet, garlands, scrollwork, mules, hull, shipbuilders, woodcarvers, jewellers, fir.
  • A couple of places are wordy, you might consider cutting them down a bit if you're going to FA with this. Examples include "The origin of the name is obscure, but is believed to be derived from... " which would work better as "The origin of the name is obscure, but is believed to derive.." or this spot "The name "bucentaur", seems, indeed, to have been given ..." which works well as "The name "bucentaur" seems to have been given..."
    • Partly fixed: Fixed the first example raised, but left the second one intact as the "indeed" emphasizes that the name "bucentaur" was not necessarily the name of only one ship. — JackLee 24 November 2024 10:59 (UTC)
  • Last paragraph of the Origin of the name section, you've lost a closing ) somewhere. No idea where it goes or I'd do it myself.
    • Fixed: Well spotted! — JackLee 24 November 2024 10:59 (UTC)
  • Hm. You say four. But mention five specifically, the 1311, the 1449, the 1526, 1606 and 1727 ones.
    • Comment: The article says there were "four major barges". Nothing is known about the 1449 one, apart from the fact that it apparently existed. There is no significant information on the Fondazione Bucintoro website about it, compared to details on the other four. — JackLee 24 November 2024 10:59 (UTC)
  • If this was FAC, I would question the formatting of ref 4. I'd rather see it use the format for a web site, but this is GA so I am just letting you know if you're going to FAC I'd raise the formatting as a concern there. (i.e. you might want to fix it before FAC (grins))
    • Fixed: Originally, that's how I had indicated it, but it was changed by another editor on the ground that the full citation already appeared in the "References" section. — JackLee 24 November 2024 10:59 (UTC)
  • Ref number 7 needs to say it's in Italian (again, like the above, this is more a concern for FAC than GA)
    • Fixed. — JackLee 24 November 2024 10:59 (UTC)
  • Same for the formatting of 8, which History of the BUcentaur's is being referred to?
    • Fixed: It's a reference to McManus. I've inserted his name to make this clearer. — JackLee 24 November 2024 10:59 (UTC)
  • That blog post as a reference won't pass muster at FAC. Given that it's GA, and it's not excatly a controversial item, I won't hold it back for this one.
    • Comment: Yes, unfortunately no better reference on the point has yet been found. See the discussion on this talk page. — JackLee 24 November 2024 10:59 (UTC)
  • If you're not using the Offical website as a reference/footnote, it should go in the External Links section. Never mind, it's there. If its not being used as a footnote, it doesn't need to be in the References section.
    • Comment: The Fondazione's official website is being used as a reference. — JackLee 24 November 2024 10:59 (UTC)
  • Check your captions on your images, and make sure if they use a period at the end that they are all full sentences. I think the second image caption doesn't need one, same with the Vrancsx painting. Didn't check the others, as this isn't my strong suit, honestly.
    • Fixed: Personally, I think that all captions should have a full stop at the end, but I realize this isn't Wikipedia policy. — JackLee 24 November 2024 10:59 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've made changes to the article and placed my comments above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Passing it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bucentaur/Archive:_GA_review&oldid=1258069311"