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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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  Done
• Monuments and landmarks – paras 2, 3 and 4  Done

… et cetera.

• All of the requested references have been provided. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have contributed to this article in the past, so I will assist. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 a lot of the shoddy web sources (like this and this 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 at least 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 but it is up to you, I think if we were to seriously work on updating and copyediting it then it could potentially become a future FA, but it isn't even close right now, seriously. Tim is it possible that you could put this on hold for a couple of weeks further? Had I been aware of this nom earlier I could have probably by now have already made good progress.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to extend the period for another week, which would, I think, take us to Tues 2 July. We can reconsider the matter in the light of progress made by then. Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming

The references are now acceptable. There are a few uncited statements lower down in the article, but nothing to cause alarm. At FAC they would be unacceptable, but seem to me to meet GA criterion 2b. However, since I last looked in, lo, there are three sections with ((Expand section|date=July 2013)) tags. I think the footnote to criterion 3a just about lets you off the hook here ("This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics"). I am well equipped to contribute to the cuisine section, and may do so once this review is concluded. For present purposes there remain individual queries and quibbles, a list of which shall follow very shortly. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, is it possible you could extend this for a few days more. Those url links were added by another editor very recently and until then I'd been in control of the referencing. The expand sections will be written over the next few days. A lot of the issues you'll find will probably be ones I can spot too. The best thing I think would be to leave off reviewing this until we've improved it to the level we're happy with. I think another 3 or 4 days should be enough. Is this OK?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do as you suggest. While you're working on the improvements you may like to look at my list of individual quibbles, of which the first lot is below. I'd written it before I saw your note, and you may as well have it now. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

First lot of comments, covering text down to the end of the Architecture section.

General

• WP:OVERLINK – there is an awful lot of it in this article. La Défense is blue linked ten times, Baron Haussmann eight times, the Ile de la Cité six times, Napoleon I and the Eiffel Tower five times – and many other examples.
• Italics – you sometimes italicise a French term and sometimes give the same term in ordinary font: examples include Île de la Cité, arrondissement and département
• Capitalisation: you need to decide whether the Right Bank/right bank and Left Bank/left bank are capitalised or not.

Done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is supposedly in British English, but you adopt the American form of possessive for Paris – i.e. Paris' rather than the usual English Paris's.

Done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Department -v- département – you favour the English form in earlier parts of the article and the French later on. You should be consistent. On balance I'd recommend the French, as the English term has slightly different connotations from those of "département".

Done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specific

• French Revolution
  • "established French Consulate" – is there a definite article missing here?
    • Yes. Corrected. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Administration
  • "The President of the Senate, the second-highest public official in France after the President" – I don't think this says what you mean it to say. As it stands it says that between the president of the republic and the president of the senate there is someone who outranks the latter. Either "the second-highest public official in France" or " the highest public official in France after the President".

I have fixed the semantics. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Municipal offices
  • Some confusion over the capitalisation, or not, of Provost/provost. And the parenthetic "prévot" in the third para ought perhaps to come at the earlier mention in the para above.
• Immigration
  • Do we honestly need blue links to Africa and Asia?
  • "continuously" – really continuously? Not merely continually?

Done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Economy
  • More needless blue links in the opening sentence. And in the second para why two blue links to La Défense in one sentence, je vous demande.
  • "Activity in the Paris urban area, though diverse, does not have a leading specialised industry" – unclear why the "though": there is no implied contradiction between diversity and the lack of a leading industry: rather the reverse, indeed.
  • "public administrations" – the plural looks strange

Done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • "transportation" – if the article is in English rather than American you mean "transport". Transportation is sending felons to Australia.

Done and LOL.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Architecture
  • "design paradigms" – could we have this in English?

More to come once Dr B has finished his overhaul. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, the overlink issue was one of the ones I am fully aware of and intend getting around to. I've already delinked the words department and region about 10 times!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, can you help with overlink issue, I often find it difficult to remember if something was linked or not and sometimes it seems convenient to link it again. If you could help with the delinking this would be a great help! Still have to source and condense the districts section a bit and expand the lead but it should be much improved now. It is 164kb, after condensing and sourcing the cityscape it'll probably end up about the same. London is 175kb. I think the article needs to be very long to do such a major city justice but we might be able to knock off another 10kb if you're not happy with the length. I've gone through and cut out anything which seemed unnecessary mostly anyway.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Tim riley (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Envoi

We progress. In my judgment the article now meets the GA criteria, and any further improvements you want to make will be a bonus.

A few final quibbles:

• There are too many images squeezed in, causing sandwiching of the text. I think you should lose a few, particularly Théâtre Antoine-Simone Berriau, Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital, the Van Gogh "Pont du Carrousel", the painting of a Parisian literary salon, Django Reinhardt, Stade de France, the Sorbonne and CDG airport.
• Merovingian and Feudal eras – "sacked and held ransom, probably by Ragnar Lodbrok, who left only after receiving a large bounty paid by the crown" – internally inconsistent: if it was only "probably" him, how do we know he received a large bounty from the Crown? "reputedly left" would do the trick, I think.
• There are a few uncontentious statements towards the end that could do with a citation, but nothing that falls foul of criterion 2b.
• Categories: Companions of the Liberation?

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations all round! A fine article that it is a pleasure to promote. – Tim riley (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If any of you feel like putting me in the line of fire I have Elizabeth David bibliography up for GAN. Tim riley (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]