Good articleBovet Fleurier has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 14, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 21, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bovet Fleurier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Protonk comments

Note. I read the talk page discussion of the Bovet watch ad PD claim. The questions raised there are legitimate, but the only real questions (for me) is whether or not the watch ad was produced prior to 1978 and if a copyright claim was filed explicitly. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Break up the history section into an early biography of Bovet and Vaucher, a section on the chinese market, and a section for the post 1864 company history. This will probably clear up a great deal of the trouble.
  • Eliminate some of the speculative claims about the watchmaker and china. These are not original research, as most of the claims appear in the sources, but they don't help the flow of the section.
  • Stick strictly to facts.
  • Ensure that this section provides some clue of how the company is important in a larger context. Why is the style of watch unique? How are the movements unique?

Follow-up and comments[edit]

Suggested changes have been implemented, as far as they are understood. Pictures have been added as illustrations. The citations linked through Google mention the company or its watches by name only, and provide no substantive information. The "Arts of Asia" article looks very useful, but it may take a few months before I am able to view it. It appears that all of your suggestions have been addressed. I will re-nominate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review reply[edit]

Thank you for your many useful and detailed suggestions. In addition, I have the following responses:

Images - Research on source of the ad is ongoing. I have the original photo which includes part of the rest of the publication, which includes article excerpts relating progress of the war in Europe (WWII).

POV - The descriptive language is arguably appropriate in this context. The watches produced by this company range in price from USD $30,000 to 1.8 million. This same language is found in other articles describing high quality products such as Ferrari. The language is merely descriptive, as these watches are individually hand crafted (or hand painted, engraved, etc.) by artists. The whole paragraph is supported by the source near the end of the paragraph. It would have been too repetitive to add that same footnote after every single clause.

Watches section - Not sure to which citation you are pointing... footnote 33? Those citations support the statement and they are well known associations entirely independent of Bovet.

References - There is nothing "prima facie" wrong with a self-published website. A self-published cite should not be a problem. Its claims are generally supported by other citations (or do not contradict such), and the website has general credibility and evidence of honest research. The author has no connect whatsoever to editing this article, and it is an independent source. I have contacted the individuals listed as supporting contributors. They are responsive to inquiries and are collector/experts on European watches. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some responses
  • POV. I gather that the company made some fantastic watches. However we can reserve that judgment for sources. Some of the stuff (exp the one sentence in the lead) isn't necessary. The article can speak to facts that show the craftsmanship of the watches, but we should steer clear of providing that judgment ourselves.
  • Images: Yeah, it really was a minor quibble, those are OK in my books.
  • References. I didn't say there was anything wrong with using a self published website. My concern was that most of the article is supported by this one source. If less than 1/2 of 1% of wikipedia's articles are good articles, we should probably look for some breadth.
  • Citation 33: Sorry. I thought I was clear. That citation is purely promotional. regardless of the independence of the source the nature of the work can come into question. It isn't a huge deal but the article does present a slight POV slant and that cite stuck out at me.
I'm going to change the "on hold" tag to "second opinion" because I would hate for this to be stuck here because I'm being too harsh. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is truly a challenge to find any information on this watch maker. I have been to all the libraries and have done thorough research. The only more that could be done would be research at the horological libraries in London or Geneva. I agree with you about citation(s) 33, but even though the articles in those two cites do have a promotional tone, they conform to wiki standards of verifiability, and are credible sources. I don't know if you are being too harsh, but I do believe that the article is better as it is than with no cites at all. I will implement your recommended changes when I can, or even better some other contributing editor will. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
did you check out the two links I posted above? there are a few web-available books on the subject and that scholarly article should be available at a university library. If you can't get access to one, let me know and I'll see if I can't email you a copy. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, thank you for the links. I don't know why I didn't think of checking google books. Unfortunately, the content does not have any useful information, or it is the same information found in other books already cited. I am waiting for a free day to go to the library. Thank you for your offer to help. If you happen across it before I am able to implement its content, feel free to send it. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA second opinion: hold[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Needs work. e.g. "When the company began to produce watches again in the 1990's it was a very unique style of watch which incorporated various elements of the pocket watch form in its construction, such as at the lugs, and won awards after its introduction in 1997." is both a run-on sentence and awkward--that's just one example. Also, Citations do not follow MoS for dates.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Lots of unreliable sources, non-independent sources, and websites of questionable reliability. Good that there are a lot of references, but bad that they are repeated and non-templated. See WP:CITET and use <ref name=> tags to collapse them for ease of readability. Also, looks like youhave a few books without ISBNs included.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

ON HOLD for a week. Hopefully that gives you a good list of additional things to work on. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Failing GA review[edit]

Ok. This process doesn't help the article if it drags on with little change. since only some of my comments and few of the second opinion reviewer comments have been addressed (and it has been 10 days since the second opinion), I'm not going to promote this article. Fix the issues outlined by the two reviewers and this article will do well at GAN. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bovet Fleurier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bovet Fleurier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bovet Fleurier. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories