Talk:San Juan, Puerto Rico/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Malleus Fatuorum in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
  This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

Reviewer: --Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

History
Geography
Districts
  • "East of Old San Juan lies the upscale tourist-oriented neighborhood of Condado ...". What does "upscale" mean? Up-market?
Demographics.
  • Needs to be cited.
Tourism
  • "On January 23, 1984 both of these edifications were catalogued as being part of humanity's cultural patrimony." I guess this was means to say "edifices" rather than "edifications"?
Culture
  • Is Ref #38 meant to source everything in the first paragraph? As it's one of the broken links it's difficult to check.
Government
  • Needs to be cited
Safety
  • Needs to be cited.
Education
  • The last paragraph needs to be cited, particularly this claim: "Most of Puerto Rico's best private schools are located in San Juan".
Transportation
  • The first paragraph needs to be cited, particularly this claim: "The Port of San Juan is the fourth busiest seaport in the Western Hemisphere".
Health and utilities
  • Needs to be cited
  • There's nothing about utilities in this section, or elsewhere in the article that I can see.
Sports
  • The first paragraph needs to be cited.
See also
References
  • There are at least six dead links.[1]
  • One link is flagged as spam.
  • Microsoft's Encarta is cited eight times, and the Encyclopedia Britannica once; general encyclopedias are not suitable sources for another general encyclopedia like wikipedia. Reliable secondary sources need to be found.
  • Citation #22 needs to be fixed.
  • Full details including publisher and last access dates need to be given for all citations. See #24, 29, and 46, for instance.
I see, there is a combination of inexperience and decay in this old GA. This may not be the best time of the year to deal with it, but I should be able to work with the issues throughout the next week. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for picking up the torch. There's no desperate rush with this though, particularly given the busy time of year. If it's being worked on I'm happy to leave it for as long as it takes. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wew, I'm finally back. Work on the article will begin on January 3, after some delayed archiving and cleaup takes place. Regards, - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

How are we doing with this?

edit

This review was opened over two months ago now, but many of the issues raised above remain outstanding. So I'm going to close this now and delist the article. The work that still needs to be done is best tackled without the time pressure of a GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.