Talk:Gasparilla Pirate Festival/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sarangem (talk · contribs)

Rate	Attribute	Comments at end
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments[edit]

The first paragraph of "Inspiration" section contains double inverted commas at end of line; one unclosed.
(Although not necessary for GA, it would be better if section heading "Exceptions" made bold)
It would be better if the third reference marked as (PDF) at the end of title.
This picture in History section needs proper caption. It should be "second year", not "edition." Otherwise, you could just write Early automobile in the 1905 Gasparilla parade.
In the infobox, what is meant by "Celebrations:106". I think it should contain text about celebrations occuring that day like parade.

Status?[edit]

@Zeng8r and Sarangem: Is this still being worked on? Can it be closed? RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminder, i really forgot about it. I would complete this in about a week. Sarangem (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeng8r and RoySmith: Because of being busy in offline works, i cannot complete the review. I apologise and request to find a new reviewer if possible.Sarangem (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just getting through the busiest part of the school year so I missed the discussion above and the earlier GA review comments as well. But I've gotta say, I'm frustrated by the process. If the only problems noticed by the reviewer were an extra comma, a "maybe it should be tweaked" caption, etc. wouldn't it have been just as quick and easy to simply fix the issues as it was to list them out? None of the items mentioned in the review is more serious than a typo; it will take me ten minutes to fix them all. I'll take care of them now, ~~but then it'll probably be another six months before the article receives another review~~. Zeng8r (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

addendum Ok, so it took me less than 10 minutes, although I don't understand the comment about the number of celebrations / occurences as listed in the infobox. The current figure (106) is the number of times that the parade has been held. Zeng8r (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

another addendum I just saw that @RoySmith: is working on getting a new reviewer on the case. Thanks; I withdraw some of my earlier peevish comments. Might even find an interesting GA nominated article to review myself, when I have a minute. Zeng8r (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I later seen my own comments, I was too thinking it silly. Do we need second opinion? Sarangem (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - since you began the review it's up to you.

And I hope you didn't take personal offense to my comments above. Long winded explanation: I've spent the last couple of weeks reading and critiquing drafts of my students' 1500 and/or 4000 word history research essays (two different assignments, both graduation requirements). Sometimes the paper needs serious revision or even a complete rewrite, and sometimes the only problems are a few minor typos or formatting errors. Only students are allowed to edit their work, however, so instead of fixing the little mistakes myself, I have to describe where to find them ("Second section, third paragraph, end of the fourth line..."). So I guess that's why combing through the GA review hit a sore spot lol. Zeng8r (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]