Talk:Valencia (Congress of Deputies constituency)/GA1

GA Review

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

Initial Comments: This article passes the quick-fail criteria. The references look fine. All of the pictures' copyrights seem to be in order. At first glance this article seems to be pretty good overall with some nice supplemental graphics. My goal for this review is to be as thorough as possible, but please note that it's my personal policy not to make any edits on the article I'm currently reviewing, so the list of changes is up to other editors to fix if they so desire. Also, I work a lot of my time on wikipedia doing copy edits, so I will generally give extra attention to grammar and flow. The full review is below. And anytime I say "you", I mean any editor, not anyone in particular.

Requirements for GA passage

1. "Valencia City" appears throughout the article multiple times with "City" sometimes capitalized, sometimes not. If the proper name is "Valencia City", then "City" should be consistently capitalized.
2. In the intro, "it's" should be "its".
3. Under the section "Boundaries and electoral system", the first sentence is confusing. "...the boundaries must be the same as the province of Valencia..." The boundaries of what? This needs clarification.
4. Under "Electoral procedures", in the second sentence of the first paragraph, that article says "Electoral commission (Junta Electoral)" where "commission" should be capitalized if Electoral Commission is a proper noun.
5. In the second paragraph of the same section, it reads, "The format of the ballot paper is designed by the Spanish state, however the law allows..." The "however" should have a comma on each side ( state, however, the) or a semicolon on the left and a comma on the right ( state; however, the)
6. Under "Eligibility" was the word "forment" supposed to be "foment"?
7. Optional It just pleases my ear if "at least 40% of candidates of each gender" changed to "at least 40% of candidates of either gender". Completely a judgment call.
8. Under "Number of members", there should be a comma before "respectively" in the last sentence.
9. Under "Results by municipality", "West" should not be capitalized in this situation.
10. The third sentence under "2004 election", the ending doesn't flow well. Maybe the ending of "of Valencia city" should be cut off.
11. In the same section, the first sentence of the last paragraph also feels clunky. That sentence might need a rewrite.
12. Under "2008 election", there shouldn't be a hyphen in "out-polled". "Outpolled" is correct.
13. At the end of the same section, the article would be better with "with the PP's share dropping by 19%."
14. Under the "2008 election" section directly before the results, the third sentence states "For the PP, former president of the Valencian community, Eduardo Zaplana..." is "president of the Valencian community" a proper title? If so, then some capitalization needs to occur.
15. In the same section,"In the event Navarro resigned" should be more like "After the event.." or "After the controversy.." or take your pick.

So, overall:

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:

Suggestions for future improvements

1. You may want talk about some of the basics of the parties, like what you mean by centre left and centre right.
2. The keys after the tables should be consistent in the order of what symbols are being used, like * then # and so on. Most of them are, but the last few are not consistent.
3. You may need to look at how many dashes are used in the article. Some are okay but too many are frowned upon in formal writing. I didn't see too many, but again, this may be something worth looking at because they did catch my attention.

Review Result

GAN review ON HOLD

In short, this article is great overall, but does need work on the prose to meet GA status. Some outstanding work has been done here especially with the tables, graphics, and solid sources.

I will place the article on hold for ten days, during which time all requirements need to be met in order for me to consider passing it. When/if all the requirements are met, please notify me on my talk page and I will review the changes. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia thus far, and good luck with the article in the future! TheTito ^(Discuss) 01:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)