Talk:Cubzac-les-Ponts/GA1

GA Review

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

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 -

• Y 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 carries as 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 -

• Y 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 -

• • Y 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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A well referenced, well illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

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:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on producing an informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)