| Revision as of 17:04, 23 June 2013 editDr. Blofeld (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors636,308 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:18, 23 June 2013 edit undoDr. Blofeld (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors636,308 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| :I have contributed to this article in the past, so I will assist. ] (]) 16:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC) | :I have contributed to this article in the past, so I will assist. ] (]) 16:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Thank you for agreeing to review this. I nommed this because I have plenty of free time this week, so I can get to work with the citations.--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]|]</span></span> 16:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC) | :Thank you for agreeing to review this. I nommed this because I have plenty of free time this week, so I can get to work with the citations.--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]|]</span></span> 16:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::References need formatting properly; 18/6/13 date system isn't advised for reference 18 June 2013 I'd write it as. I spot some bare url links and for an article like Paris I think the number of book sources used should be far better. To get this up to FA quality I think research needs to be started from scratch and books set out rather like ] to ensure that it is as concise as possible. It's an extremely important article and ideally should have more contributors to it and I think it needs a lot of work to really do it justice and reflect what is covered in books on it. I would advise against the use of bullet points in the city section too.♦ ] 17:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC) | ::References need formatting properly; 18/6/13 date system isn't advised for reference 18 June 2013 I'd write it as. I spot some bare url links and for an article like Paris I think the number of book sources used should be far better. To get this up to FA quality I think research needs to be started from scratch and books set out rather like ] to ensure that it is as concise as possible. I get a strong impression from looking at the mainly shoddy sources that the article was mainly written at least 5 years ago. Since then google books has come on tremendously. It's an extremely important article and ideally should have more contributors to it and I think it needs a lot of work to really do it justice and reflect what is covered in books on it even for reaching GA in my opinion. I would advise against the use of bullet points in the city section too. While the bulk of the content is good I think it needs a major overhaul with changing the proportion of web sources to book sources. I think it could take up to a month to really get it into shape, but given its importance I think is worth it. I'd withdraw it for now and renominate next month, if you like we could make this article ]'s project of the month.♦ ] 17:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:18, 23 June 2013
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This is potentially of GA (even FA) quality, except for one fatal fault: it is not nearly well enough cited. See:
- Etymology: paras 3 and 4
Done - French Revolution: para 1 Done
- 19th century: paras 3 and 4 Done
- Climate: paras 1, 3 and 4 Done
- City of Paris: Les Halles, Le Marais, Montparnasse, Avenue de l'Opéra, Quartier Latin and the Faubourg St Honoré Done
- In the Paris area: all of this section
- Monuments and landmarks – paras 2, 3 and 4
- … et cetera.
I'm putting the review on hold for a week. If you deal with this key point I'll turn to lesser matters thereafter. I hope this otherwise excellent article can be salvaged for GA. – Tim riley (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have contributed to this article in the past, so I will assist. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for agreeing to review this. I nommed this because I have plenty of free time this week, so I can get to work with the citations.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- References need formatting properly; 18/6/13 date system isn't advised for reference 18 June 2013 I'd write it as. I spot some bare url links and for an article like Paris I think the number of book sources used should be far better. To get this up to FA quality I think research needs to be started from scratch and books set out rather like Marrakesh to ensure that it is as concise as possible. I get a strong impression from looking at the mainly shoddy sources that the article was mainly written at least 5 years ago. Since then google books has come on tremendously. It's an extremely important article and ideally should have more contributors to it and I think it needs a lot of work to really do it justice and reflect what is covered in books on it even for reaching GA in my opinion. I would advise against the use of bullet points in the city section too. While the bulk of the content is good I think it needs a major overhaul with changing the proportion of web sources to book sources. I think it could take up to a month to really get it into shape, but given its importance I think is worth it. I'd withdraw it for now and renominate next month, if you like we could make this article WP:RBN's project of the month.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)