# Talk:Auberge d'Italie

There is a source that can be used to further improve this article, possibly considered one of the best available online source. It appears that the Tourism Authority has made use of it and paraphrased it for its website. The source enclosed is the original research and not the website information. The source also appears more professionally discussed, with footnotes and other. Consider adding it after all footnotes where the tourism authority website is at least. see also this. pp. 47, 59-60, 122-123. Continentaleurope (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Auberge d'Italie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am going to give this article a Review for possible GA status.
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
The usage of "works" conflicts with my understanding of grammatical English, such as "works began in 1574", "before works were completed", "Some repair works were made in 1604" & "from the centrepiece were revealed during these works". I see from the references that "works" is the term used in the sources...perhaps it is a direct translation of the Maltese sources or is it a British English variant?  Would like an explanation. Shearonink (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The tense of the following sentence needs to be adjusted: "The Malta Tourism Authority is set to move out of the auberge to premises in Smart City in November 2016."  So, now it is January 2017...did the move happen or not? Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
I will give the article another readhthrough for possible MOS missteps but I cannot find any MOS issues at this time.Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
References look as clean as a whistle and their style is in agreement with each other. Shearonink (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Well-done, can't find any referencing problems - everything looks good.Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 
Good job. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Ran the copyvio tool - no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
places the building within the history of all its eras. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
A couple of things:
Why is there a photo of one of those red postboxes/pillarboxes?
Nevermind, it makes perfect sense, because the building was used as a Post Office at one time. Shearonink (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The image file for "Side façade of Auberge d'Italie in Jean de Valette Square" is not displaying.
I don't know why it was doing this but the issues seem to have resolved themselves. Shearonink (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Since the few issues were fairly minor, I went ahead and fixed them and have passed this article to a WP:GA. Shearonink (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


### Latin inscription
I think that a translation of the (Latin?) inscription needs to be available in the article, either within the main text or in a footnote. Shearonink (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind - I think it is imperative that a translation be posted somewhere within this article.  It occupies such a large space visually, people need to understand what it says. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I was able to get a Latin translation from an AP Latin teacher:
"The renewed Italian nation has given as a gift to Gregory Carafa, the best prince of war and the greatest prince in the arts of peace, this Augustan effigy (statue) as a sign of his full majesty, because he has twice led the wanton Ottoman fleet to the Hellespont and brought back as spoils of war to the command of the Jerusalem forces 11 great ships (quinquiremes), in the year 1683."
GREGORIO CARAFÆ PRINCIPI OPTIMO
BELLI, PACISQVE ARTIBVS MAXIMO.
POST OTTOMANICAM CLASSEM DVCTV SVO
BIS AD HELLESPONTVM PROFLIGATAM
RELATASQVE. XI. QVINQVEREMIVM MANVBIAS
AD SVMMVM HIEROSOLYMITANI ORDINIS REGIMEN EVECTO
ITALA EQVÆSTRIS NATIO
MAGISTRALI MVNERE SÆCVLO AMPLIVS VIDVATA
AVGVSTAM HANC EFFIGIEM REPARATÆ MAIESTATIS INDICEM
D. D. AN. D. MDCLXXXIII.
The Google Translation is pretty awful, but does anyone know if I need to provide a published source for the translation?  I can't find one...
Shearonink (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


### On hold
@Xwejnusgozo: This article's status has been On hold since January 9th.  The various issues I have found with it have not been completely addressed.  I cannot proceed with this Review until these various issues are fixed. 04:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


### Finishing Review
This article's issues were fairly minor, consisting mostly of some finer points of grammar. I have therefore gone ahead and adjusted the incidences of "works" etc and have passed the article to a GA status.  My only concern is that I unable to find a printed translation of the Latin inscription and so have therefore relied on a translation from an AP Latin teacher.  If the Translation seems to be out of order in terms of a GA, I have no problem with it being deleted. Shearonink (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This is truly a great article and I extend my thanks and appreciation to everyone who contributed to creating and developing it over the years.  Forgive me for pointing out that it's high time we also considered how this article relates/links to the current function of this building as The Malta National Community Art Museum or rather MUŻA, as it is better known. I attended a workshop by Wikimedia Community Malta yesterday where this was discussed, and a number of Wikipedia editors agree that a MUŻA article is in order. I'm happy to hear thoughts/comments from anyone who was not present for yesterday's meeting in Valletta too, of course. --ToniSant (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)