Talk:Eiffel Tower/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 09:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fail this one. There is a lot of work to be done on the referencing before it is up to GA standard, and I can't see happening quickly. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Some issues, but solvable with a good copyedit.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

"Subsequent events" section lapses into one sentence paragraphs; it really needs to be formed up as proper prose.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Some problems - what is Loyrette's work, for example? Or Harvie's? Origins of some of the material are missing, etc.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Large sections are unreferenced, including: Design of the tower; Passenger lifts; Economics; Reproductions; Communications; Image copyright claims; Taller structures

(c) it contains no original research.

Hard to tell, as the referencing is missing from many sections.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

The later history of the tower seems limited.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The weighting towards the section on passenger lifts seems high.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Broadly, although the copyright section feels a little biased.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Appears so.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

File:Eiffel tower at Exposition Universelle, Paris, 1889.jpg needs an anonymous EU tag, rather than a life + 70 one, as the author is unknown and the image could theoretically still be in copyright
File:WWII, Europe, France, "American soldiers watch as the Tricolor flies from the Eiffel Tower again" - NARA - 196289.jpg needs a French tag to cover French copyright law
File:Jeton souvenir de l'ascension automatique de la Tour Eiffel.jpg needs a tag to cover the copyright of the coin, as well as the photograph

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

File:Eiffel.jpg has been deleted
The Gallery section does not seem to follow the MOS guidance on Galleries.
The number of images creates a "wall of images" on the right hand side of the screen on my machine - the number does seem a bit high.

Comment

I've added a fair bit to this article, & generally agree with the above:

in my opinion the structure of the article is a bit of a mess.
Agree wholeheartedly that the section on the lifts is far too long and lacks references. Anybody who cares with access to a decent library will be able to find them fully covered in The Engineer. My library has recently chucked out all their copies of this journal, so can't help.
The references using the official site are useless, they only land you on the site homepage.
As noted, probably overburdened with pictures.
IMO the bulleted list works well for the later history, which is more a string of events rather than a narrative.TheLongTone (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]