Talk:Candelaria, Tenerife

sisters cities

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candelaria_(Santa_Cruz_de_Tenerife)#Ciudades_hermanadas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.160.207 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Candelaria is in the southeast.

Critique

> Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

No, this article is terribly devoid of sources (of any kind, let alone reliable). Historical, Geographical, and Demographic information is presented without making any reference to where it might have come front.

> Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Although all the information in the article is relevant to the topic, its quality is somewhat lackluster. A great problem (besides the lack of sources) is that most of the article is written in what seems to be broken English, which tons of grammatical and mistakes (some sentences are outright non-sense e.g., "The current image of the Virgin of Candelaria is to dress"). This lowers the quality of the article and creates barriers which makes it hard for a reader to gather any sort of knowledge from it.

> Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article appears to be neutral, although this is hard to say with confidence because of the lack of source material to fact-check some statements, e.g., "Nowadays, the municipality is visited by thousands of people, not only devout to the Virgin of Candelaria, but tourists exploring the Canary culture".

> Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? And > Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

Most of the information seems to come from nowhere. The few references included in the article are either broken ([2] and [3]) or non-specific ([1] and external link to the municipality's web page). Moreover, this sources don't appear to be completely neutral, as most of them have a direct link with the topic of the article. And half of them aren't even proper sources (e.g., books, state censuses, etc.): [2] links to a regional newspaper (the article is now down), [3] links to a blog (which is also down).

There's no evidence of plagiarism whatsoever (although this is hard to prove without knowing the source material).

The article can be seen as biased, as it has a clear focus on the city/town of Candelaria (which is just a part of the whole municipality) while ignoring the other towns of the region (such as Barranco Hondo or Las Caletillas).

> Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Some information seems to be out of date, like the population data. But more important is the lack of information such as Fauna and Flora of the region, Geography, ect. (all of which can be noticed when the article is compared with its Spanish version).

Done for a Wikiedu project--Aocho032 (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Candelaria, Tenerife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090809190430/http://www.eldia.es/2009-08-05/SUR/2-Candelaria-pide-siete-cabildos-participen-fiestas-agosto.htm to http://www.eldia.es/2009-08-05/SUR/2-Candelaria-pide-siete-cabildos-participen-fiestas-agosto.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)