Talk:Clermont-Ferrand tramway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 08:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to review this article and will be starting my review in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

I usually leave reviewing the lead till I have worked through the rest of the article so that I can check that it correctly summarises the main text.
"... following the route of Line 3 on Avenue Léon Blum." - Some context is needed here, what is Line 3?
"According to the French Bureau of Ground Transport Accident Investigation ..." - The quote would be better using "quote marks" (thus) rather than using italics.
In places the article refers to "trams" and in other places to "trains". What is the difference with regard to this article?
There is a general lack of sufficient inline citations. Some paragraphs have no citations at all.
Some of the references need to be properly formatted. Some of them are bare urls and the SYLVIE JOLIVET references are dead.
The prose is in general good but there are some instances where it is unclear. I will mention these when the referencing matters have been attended to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding review

I am failing this GA nomination because the referencing is inadequate. As mentioned above, some whole paragraphs are unreferenced. Many of the references that are used are poorly formatted resulting in bare urls. The nominator has not responded to the comments made above and has not in fact contributed to Wikipedia since September. The article can be renominated later if the referencing is attended to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, the GA criteria do not mandate the use of any citation templates, merely that citations are inline. See WP:WGN#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable, specifically "Demanding the removal of dead links, in direct violation of WP:Linkrot and WP:DEADREF", "Requiring the use (or non-use) of citation templates" and "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" You can suggest bare URLs are formatted, but you cannot use it as a device to fail a GA review. (I appreciate in this instance there were more severe problems) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]