Talk:Madrid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Madrid was a nominee for Geography and places good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
To-do list for Madrid: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. Clean up the talk page and collect in here that has been suggested and is still pending.
  2. sister cities list [1]pagina oficial del ayuntamiento de madrid
Priority 1 (top) 
Archive
Archives
  1. Talk: /Archive 1
  2. Talk: /Archive 2
  3. Talk: /Archive 3
  4. Talk: /Archive 4
  5. Talk: /Archive 5

Contents

[edit] Good Article Review

I've now reviewed Madrid as per the request for assessment for Good Article status.

  • Following your peer review, substantial improvements were made.
  • The article reads well and is referenced/cited properly.
  • I did not detect any spelling or grammar issues. I would appreciate someone double checking this, I may have missed something.
  • Images are used correctly. Either free, or under the fair use guidelines.
  • I am satisfied that the article is written from a NPOV.
  • I consider the article to be stable.

I am giving this article a PASS. Congratulations, and please continue to improve the article where it is possible to do so. Pursey 05:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


I disagree that this article meets the Good Article criteria, primarily on account of criterion 1.b (lists), and criterion 2 (references). Specifically:
  • Almost the entire history section is unsourced (with the exception of the olympic city part at the very end).
  • The history: 21st century section is a bulleted list -- it should ideally be converted to prose. The 'see also' link in this section is also in the wrong place (minor issue; but it should be placed at the beginning of the section).
  • The climate section is completely unsourced. There is a significant issue with all those temperature and weather figures not having a reference. It should be easy enough to find a reference at www.weather.com or www.wunderground.com.
  • The subsection headers in the economy section don't seem to serve any purpose, and are rather long and ambiguous. I would recommend removing these. The text itself seems to address the topic, but is rather dry and uninteresting; I had to re-read it several times to really "get it". Plus, it seems like it isn't exactly complete and more could be added about specific industries. Some of this goes a little beyond GA criteria, as I think it probably meets the *minimum* standards. But I'm letting editors know of some issues for improvement purposes.
  • The population statistics in the demographics section are completely unsourced, which is a huge red flag on 2 (references). The only sourced information in this section is on the name; ironically, that blurb could slide by unsourced by the GA criteria, but the specific numbers is not good.
  • I also think that the demographics section is a little too crowded with the table in the top left and the image in the top right with text in between. The graph is really showing almost the same data as the table anyway, so it could probably be eliminated.
  • Government - no sources whatsoever.
  • Culture - largely unsourced. Most of the subsections here are just lists, which goes against criterion 1.b. Lists are acceptable in an early stage of the article's development, as it's a good way to organize information. But they should largely be converted to prose format prior to either GA or FA status. These lists are a definite 'B-class' characteristic. Also, the arts and literature subsection is a list of external links to sites; external links should only be found in the external links section at the end of the article, and not in the article content itself -- only wikilinks should be present within the article text.
  • Recommendation: move sports to it's own subsection. It doesn't really fit with the arts and culture. I'd also move the bullfighting section into sports, since it's pretty short and really falls under that category. (note: these are just recommendations, but go a little beyond the GA criteria)
  • The 'universities' section is pretty good, but it completely neglects the primary & secondary education levels in the city. Some basic information about the school systems at these levels (grammar, high schools) should be provided, though simply listing all the schools in a city should be avoided.

On the plus side, the article does have a very good lead section, and some very nice photography (and all of the images seem to have the correct image copyright tags, too ;-). So it's on the road towards being a good article, but as it stands now, it does not meet the criteria. I am delisting this article placing it back on hold at WP:GAC for a period of one week (until September 10, 2007), so that these issues can be resolved. Dr. Cash 05:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am personally taking both of your opinions and advices into account. I will take a look at all of them and try to improve the overall article. Thanks to both of you for the advices. I believe I will be able to improve most of them. Only one question... Are city articles in wikipedia about the very cities or also their metropilotan areas? I'm asking this to know if a section about the Madrid regional government is needed. --Maurice27 08:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Individual city articles should focus primarily on the city itself, with some information on the metropolitan area (population of greater area and neighbors) covered, probably in the geography section. Some cities also have a separate article on the metro area as well (see New York City and New York metropolitan area as an example). Obviously, an article about the metro area is a separate article, and not taken into account when reviewing the article for GA status. You might also want to review WP:CITIES for more information on writing city articles; specifically, there are two templates - WP:UKCITIES, for cities in the UK, and WP:USCITY, for cities in the US (suggestions from both template/guidelines could be used for other cities in the world). Dr. Cash 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On hold time at WP:GAC has elapsed, so the article is listed as failed. The primary issues remaining with the article are citation/reference issues, as well as completeness (e.g. listing in the culture section) issues. Please renominate when these issues are fixed. Thanks! Dr. Cash 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite some references have been added. There is, however, still much work to do. --Maurice27 16:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute in Geography section

However, much of this is currently under threat as the Spanish capital continues to sprawl ever outwards and upwards into the Sierra, fueled by speculation, yuppie dreams of Anglo-American lifestyles in detached homes and the policies of the regional government.

Does this sentence fit under the NPOV of Wikipedia? It seems to expose viewpoints as facts.

Freakant 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree. I'd suggest fixing this up. I'm not going to do it myself as I've just participated in a Good Article review on this article which I'm leaving to Dr. Cash to handle for now. I'll add in some comments when Dr. Cash finishes his review. Pursey 17:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm, I've actually already made my review, and placed the comments in the above section. Those issues, as well as this NPOV issue, must be resolved before this will pass as a GA. Then again, maybe the better thing to do is to just fail this now, and let editors take their time to fix it and then renominate it later. Dr. Cash 02:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehehehe... I believe that we all correctly agree it does NOT fit. I will also take a look at it ASAP. --Maurice27 08:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this phrase can't stay in as worded, but I also think it does touch on a genuine issue which has a place in this article. There are parts of the Sierra near Madrid where new construction is taking place directly at the foot of the mountain. If I find a decent source on it I will try to find a way of wording the issue in a less judgemental way. Southofwatford 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the 21st century section imbalanced

I feel that the section is imbalanced because it immediately mentions two instances of terrorism, which is associated with western hemisphere beliefs and feelings. Perhaps this really isn't a big deal, but I feel that it could be-- Thinboy00 talk/contribs 00:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The first instance of terrorism (2004) is now a significant part of the city's history and certainly needs to be mentionned, although it could be a shorter, tighter reference, given that well covered elsewhere. The second smaller instant could also be retained. I think the imbalanced reference can be removed after minimal editing Cckkab 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This reply might arrive a little bit late, but... excuse me?. What do you mean by "terrorism, which is associated with western beliefs and feelings"?. Do you, by the slightest chance, think that the reckless murder of nearly 200 civilians in a brutal attack to the rapid transport systems is not morally wrong in every sane system of beliefs? Because, if you do, I fear that your mind needs some "fixing". In the Soviet/Orwellian way. Habbit 19:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made in order to make "Madrid" article a GA

After taking a look at some of the advices and opinions by Dr.Cash and Pursey in order to get this article as GA, I made the following changes:

  • The history section is now correctly sourced
  • The 21st century history section is now included inside another section and changed into prose
  • The climate section is now sourced
  • The population statistics in the demographics section are now sourced and updated to last numbers by INE (National Statistics Institute of Spain)
  • The government section is now sourced
  • The universities section has now become "education" and adds info about primary & secondary education in the city adding a link to the main article "Education in Spain"
  • Moved sports to its own section
  • I haven't touched the bullfighting section as it is considered in Spain more as a show (like a music concert or the circus) than a sport. Therefore I understand it to be correctly placed in the culture section. But that's only my opinion.
  • The only RED FLAG remaining is the culture section. I added a "prose" template. If anyone is willing to help to converted it to prose format, it would be very helpful
  • This talk-page has now the option to be archived from time to time

I hope those changes are helpful to the overall article. Cheers, --Maurice27 23:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The traduction of Madrid´s motto isn´t "From fuck", oviously. I´ve remove this traduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.65.40 (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm sorry if I'm intruding on something, but there are two parts of the article about the water supply that both say the exact same thing. Should one of them be deleted? I'm just someone who noticed, I'm not an editor or anything. Just thought it should be pointed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.247.184 (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology correction...

The Arabic name of Madrid, at the time of the Arab domination of the Iberian Peninsula, was Majrit مجريط which comes from Majra مجرى which means river. It was built by the Ummayad Emir Muhammad ibn Abdul Rahman.
So the section : Names of the city and origin of the current name is not accurate, because it cites that its Arabic name was Mayrit!!!!! But, in the section : History, the Arabic name is correct... but, it cites that it means 'source'!!!!!

[edit] SKYLINE ANYONE?

this is one of the only major city articles i have ever come across that had no skyline photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma5 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple spellings

Why is Madrid categorized as "place with multiple spellings"??

Good question. I will remove the category. In fact, many of the items in that category don't really make much sense. Dnowacki (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tourist Guide?

I think that this article is written like a tourist guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.59.63 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, the article is very bad. Most of it is made up of peacock statements, containing no sources and very little factual information. In addition, the English used in this article is very bad at times, it's just Spanish sentences with English words, paying no attention to English grammar and syntax. An article on a major European capital must not be this badly written. Unfortunately, the quality of the article is so low that it will be a major project to get it into a normal Wikipedia article. JdeJ (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All edits for the past six weeks reverted

Unfortunately, I've had to revert all edits for the past six weeks to return this article to an encyclopedic article. On the 6th of February, the user user:Pierre Bailey made extremely unencyclopedic edits to this article. What the user did was to replace most of the article with what is either a copy/paste from a tourist guide or his own personal and highly subjective description of Madrid. Whichever the case, it's unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The new version by Pierre Bailey was unorganised, written in poor English, completely lacked Wikilinks and was filled to the brim with peacock statements, POV and weasel words. Unfortunately, the only way to restore what once was a proper Wikipedia article and not one single individual's personal idea of Madrid is to revert back. I apologise to those who have made constructive edits, but wish that some of them would have taken the time to look at the page they were editing so that this (hopefully unintentional) vandalism would have been reverted long ago. That an article on such an important city as Madrid has been allowed to remain unchecked in that sorry state for six weeks is a bad sign for all of us who edit Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sister

madrid has a lot of sister cities, not only two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.95.123 (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

An anonymous user changed the motto from "La Suma de Todos (The Sum of Everyone)" to the "de Madrid al cielo" without giving a reason (Revision as of 04:05, 16 May 2007) Actually, upon checking the history it seems like the first edit was the "cielo" one (Revision as of 19:11, 4 March 2007). I have certainly heard of the "cielo" one and not the other, but I do not think it is official. The Spanish Wikipedia makes no comment about the city's motto.--208.102.210.163 (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


"La Suma de Todos (The Sum of Everyone)" is definetively the official motto from the Madrid Community (not to mistake with the city of Madrid itself). That said, the "de Madrid al cielo" is not official at all. It comes from a novel called "Entre Visillos" published in 1957. It became more and more popular with the years and it finally was adopted popularly as the unofficial motto: "De Madrid al cielo...y desde el cielo un agujerito para verlo" (From Madrid to the Heavens... And from the Heavens a little hole to see it). Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 06:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)