Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
The article was reviewed last night for both DYK and GA by User:DivaKnockouts. I had found some prose issues in another of these castle articles, so I took a look at this one, and found what I consider to be severe issues with the prose. In fact, I believe it fails all three of the good article criteria under "Well-written", 1a. Specifically:
These are examples; I don't have time to give this a deeper review, but I don't think anything more is needed. The GA review missed some very basic and endemic issues with this article, and I believe the article should be delisted. Once the very major prose and translation issues have been solved, the article can be resubmitted, but it simply is not ready, and would in fact have been eligible for quickfail for the copyright issue alone. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hahc21 has stated that the translations were his own, and I believe him. The similarity to Google Translate points up the problem, however, that this would appear to be a literal translation with insufficient understanding of the various terms to do a paraphrase in clear and concise prose. Translation is hard, and translating technical material is that much harder. The results must meet Good Article standards, and these are not at or near such levels.
I strongly recommend that a copyedit be obtained from the Guild of Copy Editors before the article is submitted again. Phrases such as "The origins of the castle remount to 1668" in the intro, and the entire final paragraph of the History section, simply do not approach the "clear and concise" or "spelling and grammar" requirements, and problems remain throughout the article even after the rewording undertaken above (which should have been done prior to the original submission).
Although not strictly a GA requirement, there need to be more wikilinks to explain the many unfamiliar terms involved. As an example, the phrase "The Santa María de La Cabeza was built with marly limestone ashlar with fossil leftovers" should certainly link "marly" and "ashlar", and I'm not convinced the author understands how "with fossil leftovers" is connected to the marly limestone ashlar because I don't after having read the sentence.
It has been 24 hours, and the interested parties, including the original reviewer, have been notified. Given the extensive remaining prose issues, including "These changes in design calatogued the fort as a unique building within the country."—which is not only an oddly phrased sentence but contains an uncorrected typo—I don't think it's necessary to wait any further.
The article is being delisted; it is not a Good Article in its present state. I hope the author will continue to work on it and get a good copyedit. I further hope the original reviewer will be more careful in any future GA reviews; I simply don't understand how the overwhelming number of issues were missed. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
The article was reviewed last night for both DYK and GA by User:DivaKnockouts. I had found some prose issues in another of these castle articles, so I took a look at this one, and found what I consider to be severe issues with the prose. In fact, I believe it fails all three of the good article criteria under "Well-written", 1a. Specifically:
These are examples; I don't have time to give this a deeper review, but I don't think anything more is needed. The GA review missed some very basic and endemic issues with this article, and I believe the article should be delisted. Once the very major prose and translation issues have been solved, the article can be resubmitted, but it simply is not ready, and would in fact have been eligible for quickfail for the copyright issue alone. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hahc21 has stated that the translations were his own, and I believe him. The similarity to Google Translate points up the problem, however, that this would appear to be a literal translation with insufficient understanding of the various terms to do a paraphrase in clear and concise prose. Translation is hard, and translating technical material is that much harder. The results must meet Good Article standards, and these are not at or near such levels.
I strongly recommend that a copyedit be obtained from the Guild of Copy Editors before the article is submitted again. Phrases such as "The origins of the castle remount to 1668" in the intro, and the entire final paragraph of the History section, simply do not approach the "clear and concise" or "spelling and grammar" requirements, and problems remain throughout the article even after the rewording undertaken above (which should have been done prior to the original submission).
Although not strictly a GA requirement, there need to be more wikilinks to explain the many unfamiliar terms involved. As an example, the phrase "The Santa María de La Cabeza was built with marly limestone ashlar with fossil leftovers" should certainly link "marly" and "ashlar", and I'm not convinced the author understands how "with fossil leftovers" is connected to the marly limestone ashlar because I don't after having read the sentence.
It has been 24 hours, and the interested parties, including the original reviewer, have been notified. Given the extensive remaining prose issues, including "These changes in design calatogued the fort as a unique building within the country."—which is not only an oddly phrased sentence but contains an uncorrected typo—I don't think it's necessary to wait any further.
The article is being delisted; it is not a Good Article in its present state. I hope the author will continue to work on it and get a good copyedit. I further hope the original reviewer will be more careful in any future GA reviews; I simply don't understand how the overwhelming number of issues were missed. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)