Talk:Port of Constanța

GA Review

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

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

• This article lacks necessary inline citations to verify the information.
  • "History" has no references
  • Same with "General info"
  • And "Satellite ports"
• Most of the article is unreferenced. References need to be added to let others verify the information in the article.

Questions and comments placed on this page will receive responses. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Could you please tell me what are the rest of the problems so that i can try to fix them? Mario1987 11:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice job on the references; it's looking much better already. The references must be formatted to include publisher and access date information, per WP:CITE/ES; the {{cite web}} template can be used to make it easier in formatting this information. After that, if you feel that it is ready, feel free to resubmit it to GAN. Gary King (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Mario1987 09:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

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)

Improvements

Actually, now that I see how much improvements have been made in so short time, I regret not placing the article on hold. Good work. There are still some more stuff that needs perking up (some which is GA criteria and some that is not). First, the lead is a bit short, and the first sentence sounds more like a marketing gimmick than a good encyclopedic introduction. I had no idea where Constanţa until I reviewed this article, so make it clear straight away that this is in Romania. Otherwise, all sections in the article are to be in the lead. Remember: the lead is to summarize, not introduce, the article. History, satellite ports and statistics are not mentioned in the lead right now. Concerning references, they are to be behind the punctuation (not in front). In the {{cite}} template, there is the peramiter |language= set this equal to Romanian instea of using {{ro icon}}. Also, the section "operations" is completely unreferenced. Other perky stuff is to use an endash (–) insead of a hyphen (-) in ranges (ex. 2002–08 and Danube–Black Sea Canal [while written correctly here, the latter article's name is wrong]). Consider right-aliging the statistics, since they vary so much in magnitude. Also remember to {{convert}} metric values into the medival system to the Americans do not get lost (and the value nm is for nanometers, not nautical miles [though that could have been me in my copyedit]). Do not superscript th in numbers. There is also a bit over over-linking, since some words are linked multiple times. The section "Ore, coal, coke" should have an and in it. I still feel the history section is quite small, but you are the one who knows when sources are running out of more to say. While the old stuff is covered well, newer stuff is more lacking (especially after the revolution), and a news search can show wonders when researching this sort of stuff. Good work, things are coming along great. Again, do not hesitate to ask for more feedback or advice (on this or a different article). Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Port of Constanţa/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I have done a copyedit; a few comments:

   • The article is overlinked, and many words are linked several times in the same sentence.
   • There are several line breaks in the middle of paragraphs.
   • There is a difference between a hyphen (-) and an endash (–). The former is for binding words together, the latter for indicating ranges.
   • Convert all values, also tonnes. I presume by 'ton' you are referring to a 'tonne' (also known as a 'metric ton'). A 'ton' can either be metric, short or long, so keep your tongue, eh, pen, no, keyboard, straight ;)
   • See WP:Italics for what can be in italics—it is not much.
   • Avoid having the same word appear twice in a row, even if it is grammatically correct.
   • Spell out numbers less then ten or twelve (your choice).
   • Check your links. A railcar is a single-car, self-running diesel or electric passenger train. It would never be used to haul molasses.
   • Always spell out technical abbreviations, such as RoRo and TAU. Knowing that is pretty specialized knowledge.
   • Convert hectars to acres, not square feet.
   • "TAU's" meeans 'belonging to TAU', while TAUs is plural.
   • Do not link centuries, dates and years.
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):

   Avoid stacking the images; this causes the 'edit' buttons to not be where they should be.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I probably should have let you do the copyediting, but that is too late know. Congratulations with a good article. Please read the comments, and look at the diff of my edit to learn how to improve your writing. They are almost all MoS breaches (which one cannot really expect anyone to know).

Size

Why are Size of harbor 26.13 km2 (10.09 sq mi) and Land area 12.13 km2 (4.68 sq mi) not adding up to the full Size 39.26 km2 (15.16 sq mi)? Rubenescio (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)