Talk:Gdańsk/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johannes Canaparius (Jan Kanapariusz) Gyddanyzc Gdańsk Danzig.jpg says it's CC 3.0 but I don't see any evidence on the source website that the library states that those are the licensing terms. However, as an image of a two-dimensional work that is out of copyright in itself, it's public domain, so no change is needed.
File:Mapa miasta Danzig - lata 20. XX w.png says it's PD in Poland because the author has been dead for 70 years. The author is given as Edward Carstenn; if that's accurate we would need some evidence that he died before 1953. I don't think this is the correct licence.
File:Arrested defendants of the Polish Post Office in Gdansk.jpg is used under a claim of fair use. I can see that it's an important photograph, and a claim of fair use seems reasonable somewhere, but I don't think it's necessary to understand an article about Gdańsk. It would be better in an article about the history of the Polish Post Office, or about Gdańsk in World War II, or about the Nazi occupation of Poland, or probably in several others, but I don't think it can be justified here.

I'll look at the sources next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking at the sourcing, and I've decided to fail the article on sourcing and, to a lesser extent, on being too long and too detailed. I see the previous review also failed the article for lack of sourcing, and that reviewer added some "citation needed" tags, but judging from how you've sourced this article I don't think the message about what sourcing is needed came across. The way to think about it is that everything in the article needs to have a source. For example, if you look at the "Economy" section, you have a source for the first sentence, and for half-a-dozen of the companies listed, but you don't have a source for the second or third sentence, or for the great majority of the companies. Everything needs a source. This is far too much work to be done during a GA review.

However, the article is also too long. Some examples of excessive detail, and places where more sources would be needed if you keep some of that detail:

We don't need a list of 60 companies in the city.
Details of earlier composition of the city council -- even in a "history of Gdańsk" article this would be too much detail; it belongs in an article about the history of the Gdańsk city council.
We don't need to list every school in the city, and some are unsourced anyway.
Similarly are all four scientific and regional organizations worth including? And again some are unsourced.
Much of the "Sports" section is unsourced.
There are too many images -- if you cut other material you'll have to cut some images anyway, but the point of images is not simply to introduce as many as possible, it's to inform the reader.
Much of the transport section is unsourced.
The history section could probably also be cut quite a bit. Have a look at WP:SUMMARY, which explains "summary style". Sub-articles can be used to hold material that is too detailed for a parent article. Here you have a good deal of information that would be good in "History of Gdańsk" but is excessive here.

I won't go through every section in this way, but the same problems are apparent throughout the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]