Talk:Lake Como/GA1

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Nominator: Itemirus (talk · contribs) 11:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I am going to review this. I identified three major issues:

• the article should start with a "Geography" section (you have one, but that's actually only about geology). This section should contain the basics: some records (third largest lake, etc), size, shape, some key facts from the infobox, what rivers go in, which go out, islands, lariano triangle and similar features, what cities surround it (the city table at the end seems out of place; should be within a geography section), what mountains, etc. I see that the Italian Wikipedia's article has a section like this.

• parts of the article are written like a tourist guide, rather than an encyclopedic article (we have our sister project Wikivoyage for that). There are two separate problems here: Puffery, balance, and focus.
  • Puffery: Take a look at WP:PEACOCK. An example is Lake Como is globally celebrated for its exquisite villas; this is puffery and not neutral, I doubt that everybody would "celebrate" the existence of such things. The article is full with such cases.
  • Balance. You cover topics of touristic interest in great detail but neglect, or completely omit, others. For example, there is an extensive section on the local cuisine, but no section on agriculture.
  • Focus. Much information is not specifically about the lake itself but about the "Lake Como region". The article should probably focus on the lake itself, and mention things from the area only when directly relevant to the lake. I think you usually did that, but the sections "Manufacturing", "Craftsmanship", and "Trade" do not seem to be about the lake at all. It is also unclear to me what that "Lake Como region" precisely is; does that include only the towns on the lake shore or is that a wider area? Isn't there another article (e.g., the local governmental unit) that is more suitable for such information? I mean, if you include a section "Manufacturing", you would also need "Education", "Agriculture", and many more; that can't be the scope of this article.

• there is much unsourced information. Make sure that all paragraphs end in inline citations. Also, the cities table needs a source (why this particular selection of towns?)

Other issues:

• the article is too unspecific in places. For example:
  • In the climate section, you state that "Severe weather events … impacting the region's climate patterns", which does not really say anything (or would someone assume that severe weather events are not affecting climate patterns?). The sources you cite appear to be focused on the actual consequences (floodings, land slides), which you do not mention at all.
  • Water levels fluctuate seasonally depending on inflows from snowmelt and rainfall – here it would be interesting to state how much they fluctuate, that is what a reader would like to know here.

• some aspects are not covered as far as I see:
  • Water quality, and did it become worse?
  • You mention airports, but not the boats and ferries that connect various cities on the lake?

• While I have to fail this for now, I hope that will not discourage you and that the pointers above will help you to further improve the article. If you have any questions, please let me know! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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.