Talk:Hôtel Ritz Paris/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC) I'll post initial review comments this weekend. Meanwhile, perhaps you might disambiguate your links to:

• Bloody Mary
• Coromandel
• Paris Peace Conference

Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There is good stuff in this article, but there is quite a bit that needs to be fixed before it meets GA standards, in my judgment:

• General: see WP:OVERLINK and lose overlinks for Paris, France, Parisian, London, second appearances of Ritz, Escoffier, Edward VII, Louis XIV, Shah of Iran, and the third appearance of Edward VII.
• Spelling:
  • English or American? – you have both "colour" and "colored", for example
  • Göring or Goering? – you use both
• Lead:
  • Does not really cover all aspects of the main text: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)
  • References. Should not generally be necessary: anything in the lead should reflect what is in the main body of the text, where the references should be. There is a lot of info in this lead that is not in the main text – and should be.
• Background and history
  • Why a capital letter for "Liqueurs"?
  • Three sentences in a row start with "Ritz" – a preposition would suffice for at least one.
  • "Shah" – needs a definite article
  • "Proust wrote parts of Rememberance of Things Past" – no he didn't: the word you want is "Remembrance"
  • "He renovated" – ambiguous
  • "Ritz-Escouffier" – misspelled
  • "their fatal car accident in the Pont de l'Alma" – not in the bridge, but in the underpass named after it
• Architecture
  • Quote at end of first para could do with an inline attribution
  • "was reportedly the first hotels" – singular verb with plural noun
  • "bathroom en suite" – why italicise "bathroom"?
  • "currently offers" – we are enjoined to avoid statements that can rapidly cease to be current: see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Chronological_items
  • "Frommer's, who describes" – which, rather than who?
  • Link to Louis XV?
  • "The most expensive hotel in Paris…" Not a sentence – you need a subject and a verb.
  • "Vendrome" – spelling?
  • "Cesar Ritz" – accent?
  • "are " a world" – space after opening quote mark
  • Quote needs an inline attribution
  • "The suite … now contain" – singular noun with plural verb
  • "quilting created by Grande Mademoiselle" – could we have a brief phrase to put Grande M. in context, e.g. "the fashion house/designer/hostess" or whatever?
  • Link to Louis XVI?
  • "under this historic monument" – not clear what this means. Presumably it is legally protected as an historic monument.
  • "and Dodi ate" – use of given name alone is inappropriately informal
  • "The World Travel" – space needed before "The"
  • "Europe's Leading Suite" – capitals not needed
• Restaurant and bars
  • "The cuisine is served" – served by waiters rather than by the chef, surely?
  • "several statues and fountain" – "a fountain" or "fountains"?
  • "hires 5 or so florists" – "five" for a number under 10 (MoS)
  • Bars: be consistent in whether you italicise their names or not; I'd recommend not, but à chacun son goût
  • "anisete" – spelling
  • "and bar furnishings and a marble fire place and historic" – three "and"s in one sentence
• Ritz-Escouffier School
  • Spelling in header and in first sentence.
• In fiction
  • The repeat links of Fitzgerald et al are probably all right here, being a goodish way from their first mention.
  • "Noel Coward" – diaeresis needed: "Noël".
  • " Ian Flemings" – possessive apostrophe needed

Please consider the above. I'll put the review on hold meanwhile. Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion sought

The nominator seems to be a vanished user, having quit Wikipedia shortly after nominating this article. I saw, but cannot now find, a notice by the user to that effect a few days ago. My problem is therefore that I cannot promote the article as it stands, but I do not feel I can make the amendments suggested above and then promote the article myself. I should like a second opinion on my view that with the few changes requested above, the article would be of GA standard. Tim riley (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you have done a very thorough job of picking up the points requiring attention and I agree that if these were fixed, the article would deserve a GA. As for content, I think the article covers most of the important points although interesting details can also be found in earlier newspaper articles such as this one. A bit more background on César Ritz and the Duc de Lazun may be called for. Have you not brought these points to the attention of Dr. Blofeld? He seems to have added a considerable amount of detail to the article? - Ipigott (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Good! Alas, it is Dr. Blofeld who is both the vanished user and the nominator, so one is in rather a vacuum. I have now made the alterations I suggested above, and a few minor tidyings-up. May I hand over to you to make a formal assessment (and, naturally, to add anything such as you mention in your note above)? Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Review by Racepacket

I am taking over the formal review. Racepacket (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for asking for a 2nd opinion. I enjoyed it. No disamb. or invalid external links.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "who had been indebted to Ritz for coming up with the name "Grand Marnier""->"who had been obligated to Ritz for inventing the name "Grand Marnier" - avoid implication of formal financial obligation

   Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   "ritzy" - I would use quotation marks rather than italics

   Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   Wikify Jacuzzi

   Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   ""Imperial".[24]"->""Impériale".[24]" - consistent spelling????

   It know as both, in French Suite Impériale, in English Imperial Suite. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   I understand. You might wish to strive for consistency, but not a GA criteria. Racepacket (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   ", Coco Chanel, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Ernest Hemingway."[24]" - by listing these three, you seem to exclude the other named suites. Perhaps you should delete this last part of the quote? What do you think is fair?

   Fixed. Removed all names until they are identified one by one. It is redundant anyway to mention them twice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   "George Bush, Sr"->"George H. W. Bush"

   Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Describe how high is the building, i.e., how many floors.

   I can't find any figure for how high the building is. It not the typical skyscraper type hotel in which hieght is an issue. Unless somebody can find a figure? I've added 4 floors including the attic♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Place Vendôme 6.jpg - check licensing problem

   Can't see an issue?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   I would move painting by Jeanniot to a point adjacent to the discussion in the text.

   Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   Since you have several exterior photos of the hotel, could the captions describe the different views, e.g."Hotel Ritz as viewed from the south"

   Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I am here! Thanks for the comments! I will address these over the next few days. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just sticking in my nose here, I think it needs a little more history detail from WWI to present. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a lot happened! Kind of like after 1917 in the Summer Palace!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Very pleased indeed to see Dr. Blofeld back in circulation. I pass the baton back to him and will watch the progress of this article with benevolent interest. Happy editing to all! Tim riley (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All issues mentioned above I gather have been addressed by Tim himself. Kudos. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Doctor! I have dealt (I think and hope) with everything up to but not including Racepacket's queries. I'm slipping down to the Crillon and leaving those to you. Bonne chance! Tim riley (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know, I've addressed the Racepacket issues mostly myself, I was talking about the above above list. So it looks virtually resolved?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent edits. One final recommendation: I would change "including the attic"->"including the Mansard roof". Congratulations on another Good Article! Racepacket (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)