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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 00:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and will have some initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use a template to do a full review, but there are several things that jump out at me as needing to be addressed before a full review can commence. Due to this, I am going to post some initial comments here, and once they have been addressed, I will review the article in full. Initial thoughts:

• Work on referencing is needed. Examples:
  • A fact tag in the Etymology section and three in Language and literature.
  • City government section needs references, especially the first paragraph
  • Geography section needs references
  • First paragraph of Economy section needs references
  • Tourism section needs additional references to cover uncited statistics, opinions, etc.
  • Sports section needs additional references for statistics, etc.
  • Seven dead links that should be fixed or replaced, see [1], most (but not all) already marked.
• There are several sources that I find myself questioning the reliability/usage of:
  • What makes ref #8 (Frogdesign) a reliable source?
  • Ref #21 (See the Versum de Mediolano civitate.) - Don't reference to other WP articles!!!
  • Ref #23 (Ibid., p. 38.) - Don't use ibid or similar; it's too easy to mix up sources if the reference being referred to gets lost.
  • What makes ref #30 ( Graham J. Morris.) a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #32, 33, 54, 56 (Storiadimilano.it.) a reliable source?
  • What makes Ref #55, 64, 86, 87 (AboutMilan) a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #61, 62, 63, 81 (CityLife) a reliable source?
  • What makes Google Maps (ref #96) a reliable source on religion in Milan?
• I find it amazing that there are fourteen paragraphs of information on Education, but only one very brief paragraph on Healthcare. Attention should be paid to the weighting of the various sections.
• Text should not be sandwiched between images, as it is in the City government and Architecture sections.
• Quite a bit of really pro-Milan language - lots of "famous for", "important for", and variations on that theme. All of these need to be carefully referenced and checked to make sure they're NPOV.
• This article is currently at over 11,300 words, which is well beyond the 6,000-10,000 word maximum recommended by WP:SIZE. I would suggest considering whether there is information which could be cut or moved to daughter articles.

Due to the referencing problems alone, I am strongly tempted to simply fail the GA nomination for this article. However, it is possible that this work could be done within the normal time frame of GAN, and so I am willing the give the nominator (and others) a shot at it. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the complete lack of response to this review, I am failing this article's nomination for GA status. I would suggest that future nominators address the above concerns before renominating the article. Dana boomer (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dana! Thanks for your interest. I think there are very few people taking care of Italy-related articles, so do not be so surprised about the lack of answers to your talk. Well, when I began to work on this article, it was in a very sorry state. After some years of continuous improving, if it is now downgraded, it sounds kind of ironic to me. I don't want to say that your remarks are not appropriate - they are all absolutely right - but some categories of articles (especially relating to non-English speaking countries' local authorities) are really godfrosaken. So, except a fistful of willings, there is not enough people to work properly on Italian cities and regions. In addition, the absurd total deletion policy of pictures of Italian modern buildings (eg. the iconic Pirelli Tower), carried on by interpreting in a very restrictive, excessive and obtuse way the Italian law on the freedom of panorama (in a totally different way from how it is applied in the Italian wiki itself) is another big issue that causes extensive damage to this and other similar articles. Therefore, any further progress, to which I will certainly contribute, will be always pretty slow.

Now, getting down to the questions:

• What do you exactly mean with "Text should not be sandwiched between images"?
• Can you help us in dealing with the picture deletion policy?

Conte di Cavour (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Conte - when text is placed between two images (in other words, an image on the right and an image on the left of a block of text), it is considered to be "sandwiched" between the images. This is discouraged by the MOS. As far as the image deletion, I have very little experience in image copyright policy and absolutely none regarding Italian copyright law. And, frankly, I don't really have any interest in learning for the sole purpose in entering an argument already populated with editors. Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dana, in the last months I tried to do my best to improve the article according to your advice. Give me some feedbacks when possible please. I would like to point out that there are very few good pictures of Milan on Commons, and a lot have been recently deleted because of copyright disputes. So it is particularly difficult to illustrate Milan's modern architecture and to replace the awful Milan collage.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]