Talk:Cubzac-les-Ponts/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]I had a quick read through of the article and I've wikilinked a few terms. Overall this article appears to be at the right level for GA, however there are quite a few (about five) {{citation needed}} flags that will need to be fixed before I award GA.
I'm now going through the article in more detail, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I will mostly be concentrating on "problems", so if I don't have much to say on a particular section/subsection that indicates that its generally OK. I will be producing an Overall summary at the end. Pyrotec (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Geography -
Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC) - I think "carries" is a French word meaning quarry. So this sentence is probably trying to say "....some of which have been used as
carriesas quarries/source of stone/etc.
- Corrected. 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Climate -
- This not a GA requirement, so it is not mandatory. A table of weather data, month by month, such as in Dayton, Ohio#Climate, or East Riding of Yorkshire#Geography would enhance the article.
- I have already looked for the information, but I haven't been able to find historical data. If I find a way to get hold of the data, I'll be sure to put it in. 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Economy -
- What is given is well referenced; but its not the full story. We are given the average income, no hotels/camp site, the type of agriculture and the size/proportion of farm land. We don't know what the people do; so I would suggest that this section is expanded / or reworked.
- I am working on this. The information is quite hard to find! 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is France, but it might to useful to look Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, especially Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities, even Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline for some ideas.
- I had a look at www.statistiques-locales.insee.fr but, unfortunately, it does not provide this information.
... stopping for now. Pyrotec (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- History -
- A citation is needed for the Simon of Montford occupation.
- Ancient crossing methods -
Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC) - The "art-et-histoire.com" citation, used several times, seems to be absent from the Reference section.
- It is the third reference under "Web"
- Sorry, I didn't see it. Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Current bridges -
- Eiffel bridge -
- There is a {{citation needed}} flag that needs to be addressed.
- This is not a mandatory requirement. I note that there are several common citations, such as "Carmona 2002, p. 160", that are cited individually. These could be addressed by using "<ref name="carmona-160">Carmona 2002, p. 160</ref>" for the first occurrence and "<ref name="carmona-160"/>" for subsequent occurrences.
- Ah, yes, thanks for the tip. I will probably implement this. 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Railway bridge -
Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC) - I'm not sure what the word "founds" is, could it be "foundations"?
- It should read "funds", corrected.
- The second half of this paragraph is unreferenced (possibly those used in the first half, could be used again?).
- Yes, I will try and look back, because I'm pretty sure the information came from one of the cited sources. 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
... stopping for now.Pyrotec (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the work done so far. It feels good to have a reviewer. 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Heritage -
...This is as far I as got. The article is likely to pass GA this time round, but its going to be eight days before I can do any more work.
- P.S. The drop down list of mayors and historical population data table are unreferenced, you have a week before I get round to reviewing them.
- I'm sorry for the delay, but I need a holiday. Pyrotec (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A well referenced, well illustrated article.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on producing an informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)