Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lastovo/archive1

Lastovo

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Needs a copyedit, some better wording and formatting. Incorrectly uses hyphens instead of dashes on some occasions, has a repetition of the number 46 trivia thing, needs some more references (citing a source for the vampirism trivia, the Bernard Shaw quote, etc.) and proper ({{cite book}}) reference formatting. Many of the images seem to be possible copyvios by User:Uvouvo and User:Luka Jačov. Needs a detailed map of the island. Featuring the article on the Main Page should be postponed until problems are solved, if this is possible. Todor →Bozhinov 15:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the issues have been resolved. The article is now quite ready for the Main Page, though it may need a little copyediting for style and/or typos. This should be ~~moved to Minor reviews~~ or downright removed. Todor →Bozhinov 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast: it's not disastrously written, but a thorough copy-edit is required to satisfy 2a. Take these two sentences from the lead as an example.

"The island is rich in architecture, featuring many buildings from the 15th and 16th centuries. There are a large number of churches for its relative size, which is a testament to the island's long standing Roman Catholic tradition. The major cultural event, apart from the normal celebrations on the Catholic calendar, is the event known as the Poklad, or carnival.

The" "its" is a little distant from the referent to be clear. What is "relative" size? Relative to what? "Long standing" should be hyphenated (look it up). Is the relative size of the island testament to the RC tradition? That's what it says. I don't like "normal". Can you avoid the repetition of "event"?

Later in the lead:

"The Romans conquered and settled the entire area until the Avar invasions and Slavic migrations in the 7th century."

They spent a long time conquering and settling, did they?

And:

"Lastovo has a dynamic landscape consisting also of 46 hills and 46 karstic fields that often contain layers of red soil ..."

Not good.

Please fix the whole text; that's why the article has ended up here. Tony 01:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails 2(a) — it still needs a copyedit, even some of Tony's examples above still have not been addressed. It also fails 4 — Image:SLB.jpg and Image:Kuzma.jpg have no copyright tag. Pagra shtak 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Sandy 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ce'ed the intro a week ago and just had a go at geography. Wow. This needs some work on writing and even sourcing (sentences that begin "this is probably because..." are not on). I'll try and go over the rest before the main page date. Marskell 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got clarification on the images, and they are acceptably tagged now. Raul654 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article earlier, and it didn't strike me as being quite at featured standard. It lacks an image that really illustrates the article, there are some prose problems, and it just didn't seem to capture the subject all that well. Rebecca 05:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prose of this article is poor, it is too fragemnted, and I question that is is comprehensive - for example there is no real information on the population (demographic or otherwise). The articles largest failing is that it is entirely unclear whether the article is talking about the island, the town or the municipality in the majority of places, it certainly feels like the municipality aspect is entirely neglected.--Peta 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it lacks comprehensiveness. Nothing about current economy and not a word about the government.--Enano275 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria conerns are prose (2a) and sufficiency of citations (2c). Marskell 17:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And (2b) comprehensiveness Peta 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what has been done to it since nomination: [1] Tony 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove--Noi s e t tes 10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—although it has been significantly improved since nomination, there's still a problem with comprehensiveness, and there are still other faults. I'm persuadable if more work is done on it. Tony 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I think only somone with access to the right documents in the right language will be able to clear up the issues with the comprehensivness.--Peta 05:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Not comprehensive, has prose quality problems. Todor →Bozhinov 14:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message left at User talk:TodorBozhinov. Sandy 03:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could people actually state what precisely they think is missing? I was actually quite astounded this was made an FA in the first place as when I first edited it there were some blatant errors (no definite article in sentences, for instance) and it was obviously underweight. However, it has improved and I hesitate to remove on the basis of comprehensiveness unless we can suggest things that should be there. I still hestitate to comment keep, however, so I'll call this a neutral. Marskell 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of economy and government sections was noted above. Todor →Bozhinov 10:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Short sections on economy and demographics did get added but it is still underweight. Marskell 19:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove--jwanders^Talk 13:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a demographics and economy section but they are short and I don't know what to do with them - are they ok like that? I could find nothing about how their municipal government is set up. I note this passed FAC in April 2006 with an oustanding objection based on "nothing about economy, administration and other things one would expect from a town article." I actually think the article has improved (not degraded) since it passed FAC. If it was good enough to pass FAC a couple months ago (without a government section) then I'll err on the side of keep now. --Maintain 05:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the original FAC. I think the promotion was a clear error on Raul's part given the unstruck objections (particularly the one you cite Maintain). This review seems headed down in flames, which is shame given your work. It can always go back to a second FAC if it gets filled out more. Marskell 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your last-minute work, Maintain; "Mediterranean" is misspelt, and those sections are both a little raw (when, for example, did the army leave?). The table is jammed up against the text. But the prose in the rest of the article is a problem. That's the killer for me. Tony 10:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article still makes no clear distinction between the town, island and municipality. There is also still no mention of government.--Peta 02:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. It is good to see that people aren't voting-and-running but are paying attention. I'm going to play the devil's advocate (if that is the correct metaphor) and stick with a keep vote. If the promotion was a mistake then why was it featured on the main page, too? I don't mind if it gets defeatured, I'm just happy to do what I can while it still has a chance. --Maintain 05:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can be of assistance in fixing up some of the objections as i have access to the material and sources in both English and Croatian. I havent got time at the moment, but will be able to fix/contribute to most things by the weekend. I just wanted to point out, that the limited size of the place (its tiny) will be a natural limit to some of the suggested sections. Please keep this in mind as you expand on the list of some things below for us to work on. Maintain has already done some good work adding some of these, we'll see what we can come up with. Uvouvo 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General copy edit (noting above suggestions)?
Government, politics section?
Demographics section?
Economy section?

I'll try get through these when I get the chance. I guess while i'm going through the sources you might as well lump on all the objectives. Uvouvo 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, try to find historical population levels for the island. We have access to the 2001 census, but I can't find any thing before that (was there a 1991 census?). For the government section how is the municipal government set up? how many representatives are elected and how are they elected? The Economy section could be supplemented by a paragraph on transportation (highway, piers, airport?). --Maintain 06:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Remove. Tony 02:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Goof. Tony 12:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, watch for duplicate comments. Also, are the people still working on this finding it literally impossible to find info on the government of the municipality? It's the last major gap (though some of what's been added is still stubbish). Marskell 06:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per "a week is too long with no editing." This is another unfortunate one to have stalled because so much had been done. However, no gov't and politics section has been created, there are still too many stub sections, and the 20th history is a bit of an unsourced mess. Marskell 15:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]