Talk:Port of Constanța/GA2

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are a number of grammatical errors in the text. It is quite minor, and nothing readers will not understand, but it should be polished up. My main concern to the prose is the overuse of paragraphs. Single-sentence paragraphs are a no-no, no matter what. In the section on terminals, it is okay to have so short section, but please put everything into single paragraphs. Also, avoid using lists. No values are converted. Whenever a metric value is given, it must be converted to imperial units to keep medieval American and British readers happy. Also, nautical values need to be converted to metric, so land-lubbers understand them too. The easiest way is to use {{convert}}. Also, years and dates are no longer to be wikilinked. The section header "general info" should probably be rephrased, perhaps into something like "operation". It is the lead that is supposed to supply general info. I find the history section very short.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   It is not sufficient to provide a link and title to meet the GA criteria for references. User the {{cite web}} template to generate references with date, author, title, url, access date and language (at minimum). Of the trhee English-language references if checked, one was a 404 and the other was a forum. Neither of these can be used. You can use this tool to check for dead links. The location of the references should alway be behind punctuation.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   For a port this size, there must surely be much more to say about the history. In particular, there is no history of the last 20 years.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   In "general info" there is the unreferenced claim :"the Danube is one of the most advantageous modes of transport, an efficient alternative to the European rail and road congested transport." This may be the case, but then it has to be referenced by a reliable, third-party source, and there must be no doubt about the matter. I would fear that with this broad a wording, the matter would be surrounded in a fog of doubt.

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:

   Unfortunately, I have to fail this article. There is a lot to work on, but I hope my comments will be to help. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I have copyedited part of the article, but there is still a good deal of formatting left. If you have not done so yet, I would recommend reading the Manual of Style to get a hang of what should be done how. If you disagree with the failing, you are free to renominate the article. I would strongly advise that all the comments be addressed first. On principle I will not re-review an article I have failed, but if you want me to look at the article again or to consider if it is ready for renomination, I will be happy to do so. Keep up the good work; you have been making many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)