Talk:French Revolution/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article not promoted --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 13:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 13:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the nominator has made a solitary edit on 23 October. While an editor does not have to contribute to an article to nominate it for GA status, this fact and the following issues give me no confidence regarding the level of commitment Royroydeb has towards this nomination.

• The article suffers from a chronic sourcing issue. There are numerous articles and entire sections that are missing references. Such a problem can be observed in: the first paragraph of "Causes"; the entire section of "Working toward a constitution"; various sentences throughout "Women's March on Versailles"; the first, second and fourth paragraphs of "Intrigues and radicalism"; the first two paragraphs of "Royal flight to Varennes"; and, almost the entire section of "War and Counter-Revolution (1792–1797)".
• The article also has widespread prose issues. For example, the first paragraph of "Financial crisis" could be thoroughly rewritten for coherence:

• "King Louis XVI ascended to the throne amidst a financial crisis, during which the state was nearing bankruptcy and outlays outpaced income. This crisis was the result of France's financial obligations that stemmed from its participation in the Seven Years and the American Revolution Wars. In May 1776, Finance Minister Turgot was dismissed after he failed to enact reforms. Jacques Necker, a foreigner, was appointed Comptroller-General of Finance the following year; he was not made an official minister since he was a Protestant." Even then, the paragraph does not tell the reader what the nature of Turgot's non-existent reforms was.

Due to these issues, I have decided to quick-fail this GAN. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 13:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.