Jump to content

Talk:Greater Region of SaarLorLux

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:SaarLorLux)
Former good article nomineeGreater Region of SaarLorLux was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 27, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 28, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Importance

[edit]

I changed importance to high, because Google showed 387.000 results for sar lor lux and this term is known in several countries. --Thw1309 10:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Currently, WikiProject Luxembourg assesses 'Greater Region' as a High-importance article. With the creation of this article, I'd suggest that that one loses importance, whilst this one replaces it in many respects. So I would tend to agree with regards to WikiProject Luxembourg. Can't say for the other WikiProjects, though; it's best left to them. Bastin 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cooperation v. Cooperative?

[edit]

Does 'Cooperation' have an European Union specific meaning? I think the word 'wikt:cooperative' might be better. Gosgood (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review

[edit]

Final Comments

[edit]

Outcome: Fail.

In any case, I commend Thw1309 for greatly improving the article over the originally nominated version. He transformed the many parts of the article from a stilted, list-like form, to a sound narrative and introduced new material as well. The real gain, I think, is that the article is now a very solid B, where the nominated version still had aspects of a Start class article.

The facets of this article that I think need improving are:

  1. Prose:
    1. There are a number of awkwardly phrased passages. Examples:
      1. When this empire was divided in three parts after the death of Louis the Pious, in 840, the Carolingians adhered to the Germanic custom of partible inheritance, and the Treaty of Verdun in 843 divided the empire into three.
      2. Problems not only result from the real differences but also from the missing knowledge of the existing competence of the partners.
    2. Scattered misspellings:
      1. "For excample, besides Wallonie..."
      2. "The eight summit..."
  2. Apparent, or inadvertent Original Research in some of the new material. The writer is native to Saarland, and what seems to be personal evaluations slip into the writing. Examples:
    1. Although politics create promising programs, their progress is limited. Mainly they create symbols as the "house of the Greater region", which is almost empty, or diplomas with the sign of SaarLorLux. The only real advancement, local politics can create, is the improvement of knowledge of the other language by creating bilingual schools.[67] This reads like the editor's interpretation; it would be better attributed to the author of the cited work, Katharina Hassler.
    2. Clubs and single persons are looking for cooperations with like-minded people on the other sides of the border. They discover, that they actually share the same roots. Although the borders created many differences, especially the language, people discover, that for centuries, they had a history in common, which still is present in many aspects on all sides of the borders. Many of these cooperations or associations have to stay on an informal level, because it is very difficult to create legal structures of cooperation as long as the legal systems in most parts are not compatible. In a certain way, this is compensated by the possibility to use the advantages of differnt natiolal systems. Things, which are impossible on one side of the border, are supported by the other state. It is not clear to me where the antecedent to this analysis resides in the references.
  3. The section Governmental Cooperations is list-like, and not summary prose; I feel the material here can be telescoped into summary descriptions giving rise to a terser, easier-to-read section.
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. It is well written. In this respect Disagree
(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and Neutral Disagree. There are a number of minor misspellings and unusual use of phrasing. The editors sometimes paraphrased from EU policy and operational documents rather too closely; this reviewer is still trying to parse: "The origins of the term [SaarLorLux] are situated in the historical economic situation of the close relationship of the coal mines and steelworks in Saarland, Lorraine and Luxembourg. (Revised, but I still find the wording obscure: The term represents the historical economic situation of the close relationship of the coal mines and steelworks in Saarland, Lorraine and Luxembourg, creating a unified economic region." There is a tendency to rely on lists or list-like prose instead of expository; the article tends to read like an aggregated enumeration of ideas, and not so much like a seamless piece. (This is an issue in only one section now: Governmental Cooperations, which I find a tedious read.) The lead writer is not a native English writer; it would probably help if this writer could team with a native English writer who could assist as a copy editor. To its credit, the tone of writing is generally formal and takes a neutral viewpoint toward the subject at hand.
  • With Revision 185869818 Thw1309 is rewriting much of the list-like prose.
  • With the final review, I feel obliged to change my marque to Disagree () Looking at the material a week on, I think this is still an issue, and the predominant one. An independent, experienced copyeditor would be helpful at this point.
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Neutral

Lead: () I find that the lead is not concise. It links to a related article defining a Euroregion, and then unnecersarily repeats the qualifications of such an entity in the lead sentence, diminishing clarity; there is then a follow-on distinction of the term Greater Region. One senses that the writer is being especially conscientous about stating terms correctly, in that SaarLorLux is both the 'Greater Region' and a 'euroregion' and though well-intentioned, this conscientiousness is a misplaced priority. The lead sentence guideline reminds us that this very first sentence should stand alone "as a concise overview of the topic, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Drawing careful distinctions in terminology is not unimportant, but doing so in the very first sentence sidetracks the article précis. (Substantially addressed with Revision 185869818)

  1. ()Improved with Revision 185869818 It is still not a strict one-to-one summary of the article, but that is now in something of a state of flux with revisions under way. As it stands, it adequately furnishes a short précis of the term, giving me a basic understanding that it is a kind of cross border development zone. Any differences between the lead and the article may be quickly addressed with one or two edits after the rest of the article stabilizes.
  2. Layout: ()The Guide to Layout suggests that articles should primarily employ prose expository. I find an over-reliance on lists (SaarLorLux#Timeline) and short paragraphs in a list-like arrangements (SaarLorLux#Geography), (The Future of SaarLorLux). I find the series of maps that illustrate the various configurations of the region useful, but the remaining images, to my mind, do not advance the article in any meaningful way. Some could be cut: The The steelwork of Völklingen is not especially a good quality image; the aerial view of Saar University could have been shot anywhere on Long Island, New York; I don't find it especially illustrative of the region. Image markup in the article explicitly sets image widths. I concur with the MOS image guidelines that advises against this practice, as it overrides user's preferences on image sizing. In some browser configurations, text sandwiches between left and right hand images. I would suggest reducing the number of images in the article.
  3. Jargon: () The European Union has a specialized terminology that the article generally takes pains to explain, sometimes to the detriment of other aspects of the article (See comment 1b-1, above. There are some omissions: Interreg III was introduced in the timeline without explanation
  4. Words to avoid: () There is no obvious or manifest use of words that carry a subtext.
  5. Fiction: () The article does not consider a work of fiction.
  6. List incorporation:() As noted above, I believe there is an over-reliance on lists and list-like paragraphs. These are disruptive to expository writing; instead of the development of ideas, one iterates over items. For example, the Geography section is comprised of the lead paragraphs of the various regions that make up SaarLorLux. This is a maintenance problem; the data needs to be manually synchronized with the region articles, and is a mind-numbing read. I believe a consolidation of this section, that references the regional articles, would be more concise.
  8. () With Revision 185869818 this is a work in progress, but the issue is being dealt with
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; Agree The writer conscientously grounds much of the article on English, German, and French sources from the EU and regional news sources. These all appear to have editorial oversight.
(b) at minimum, 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;[2] and Agree By and large, inline citations support most text. Some items in the SaarLorLux#Problems of cooperation do not appear to be supported with in-line citations. Need to check on the pie chart, Image:SaarLorLuxPopultion.gif; Not clear upon what data it is based.
Some of the recently introduced material seems to stray into the area of original research. The principle editor lives in Saarland and writes with close familarity with the subject matter. I would suggest explicitly citing the referenced authors in some of the more stronger claims so that it is clear that Wikipedia itself is not supporting the claims, but that they originate from regional authors.
(c) contains no original research. Agree The prose closely paraphrases and summarizes the references, to the extent that the arc of narrative of the article suffers somewwhat, (See below).
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and Agree The scope of the article is to characterize the nature of the cross-border cooperative, along with some of the major variations of its operation. I believe the article mainly sticks to this program.
(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style). I think the history section reaches too far back in time; Thw1309 feels that the history lends insight into how the cultures around the border participate in the cooperative. This is difference in opinion on content, and I concede that Thw1309 has a better sense of scope on this topic than I do.
4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Agree The writing is formal and neutral. Problems concerning running a cross-border organization are reported in a matter-of-fact way.
5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Neutral The article is currently undergoing change, some prompted by initial review comments, some as a part of regular article maintenance; as a consequence, I cannot vet for article stability. However, the change is orderly; there is no edit war taking place. The article is mainly evolving along the lines the principle writer has chosen. At present, a new section has appeared at the end of the article which, I believe will be completed soon.
6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. In this respect:
(a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and Agree
  1. Image:Emblem SaarLorLux.gif () Thw1309 released it under GNU 1.2 or later; CCA 2.5 (in Commons)
  2. Image:Lage SaarLorLux.gif () Thw1309 released it under GNU 1.2 or later; CCA 2.5 (in Commons)
  3. Infobox symbols:
    1. Image:Flag of Belgium.svg () Public domain, a common property. (in Commons)
    2. Image:Flag of Germany.svg () Official work in the public domain (in Commons)
    3. Image:Flag of France.svg () Public domain, a common property. (in Commons)
    4. Image:Flag of Luxembourg.svg () Public domain, a common property. (in Commons)
    5. Image:Coa de-saarland 300px.png () Official work in the public domain (in Commons)
    6. Image:Blason Lorraine.svg () Darkbob released it under GNU 1.2 or later. (In Commons)
    7. Image:Blason57.PNG () MG released it under GNU 1.2 or later. (In Commons)
    8. Image:Blason54.PNG () MG released it under GNU 1.2 or later. (In Commons)
    9. Image:Luxembourg New Arms.svg () Ipankonin released it under GNU 1.2 or later. (In Commons)
    10. Image:Wallonia (Belgium) coa.gif () GIF of SVG image, copyright held by Vector Images. Fair use rationale: Vector ImagesPolicy (in Commons)
    11. Image:Wappen deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft Belgiens.gif() Thw1309 released it under GNU 1.2 or later; CCA 2.5 (in Commons)
    12. Image:Coat of arms of Rhineland-Palatinate.svg () Official work in the public domain (in Commons)
  4. Image:Maginot2ix.jpg "Cannon of the Maginot Line" () Fistos released it into the public domain. (in Commons)
  5. Image:843-870 Europe.jpg Adapted from Muir's Historical Atlas: 1911 () (1911) Copyright expired in the United States; published before January 23, 1923. (in Commons)
  6. Image:Saar Lor Lux.gif () Thw1309 released it under GNU 1.2 or later; CCA 2.5 (in Commons)
  7. Image:Saar Lor Lux II.gif () Thw1309 released it under GNU 1.2 or later; CCA 2.5 (in Commons)
  8. Image:Saar Lor Lux III.gif () Thw1309 released it under GNU 1.2 or later; CCA 2.5 (in Commons)
  9. Image:SaarLorLuxPopultion.gif () Thw1309 released it under GNU 1.2 or later; CCA 2.5 (in Commons)
  10. Image:Saarschleife.jpg () Niesefrosch released it under GNU 1.2 or later (in Commons)
  11. Image:Place-stanislaus-nord-nancy.jpg () Enslin released it under under GNU 1.2 or later. (In Commons)
  12. Image:Campus universitaire de Metz.jpg ()FrauAntje82 released it under CCA 2.5 (in Commons)
  13. Image:Saarbruecken-campus.jpg () Hugo released it under under GNU 1.2 or later. (In Commons)
  14. Image:Vhbabansicht.jpg () Thoken released it under GNU 1.2 or later. (In Commons)
  15. Image:Luxembourg City Kirchberg1 fromBock.jpg () Caranorn released it under GNU 1.2 or later. (In Commons)
(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions. Agree

Comment: I do not think Image:Vhbabansicht.jpg, "The steelwork of Völklingen", Image:Saarbruecken-campus.jpg "Saar University" or Image:Luxembourg City Kirchberg1 fromBock.jpg "Buildings of the European Community on the Kirchberg (Church mountain) at Luxembourg city" promote much of an understanding of the article's subject matter; the subjects of the images are mentioned in passing in the article and seem unremarkable to me.

7. Overall Fail I think the article has moved a good deal closer to the Good Article marque, but still falls a little short, primarily in the area of prose. See following remarks.
  1. Prose: If possible, please recruit an native or near native English writer to help with spelling and sentence construction. There are some awkward phrasing. An example is given in 1a
    1. With the final review, this is still an issue, and currently the predominant issue. I suggest an independent editor, with good copyediting skills, to go over the prose carefully. Thw1309 should disqualify himself from this task; fresh eyes always notice matters to which familiarity blinds.
  2. References: Some of the prose in SaarLorLux#Problems of cooperation is not supported by inline citations and may be construed as original research
    1. Neutral Some of the newer material reads like original research; there are some supporting references. Unfortunately, my German is not up to the level where I can accurately judge how well the reference supports the prose. In these places, I suggest referring to the author of the underlying reference in some of the key assertions made in Problems of cooperation and The Future of SaarLorLux clearly originate from authorities outside of Wikipedia, and not Wikipedia itself.
  3. Linking: Consider Only make links that are relevant to the context. For example, it is not clear to me why links to general, basic concepts like 'villages' communities and living standards are being linked. The readership of this somewhat technical article generally grasp such concepts.
    1. This seems to be still a problem; again, an independent copyeditor can help with this issue.
  4. Completion: Complete the section 'Actual Progress, new with Revision 185861627, and the general rewriting of The Future of SaaLorLux
    1. This has been addressed.
  5. Explicit Image widths Per MOS image guidelines, please do not set explicit image widths. For example: [[Image:Saar Lor Lux.gif|thumb|right|The founding members of SaarLorLux|300px]]; this over-rides user preferences, which is not a friendly thing to do.
    1. This has been addressed

Initial observations and draft comments may be found in Draft Comments

Merge proposal

[edit]

SaarLorLux and Greater Region
Many informations duplicated between the two articles. http://www.euregio.lu/euregio.lu/html_fr/qui_sommes_nous/index.html use as well SaarLorLux+ and Greater Region for the same area.Ske (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. SaarLorLux and Greater Region are two different concepts, both on an economical as well as on a historical level. One could, however, try to reduce the redundancy in the SaarLorLux article and point to Greater Region for an advanced concept of the regional collaboration. But that's just my 2 cents --Clausekwis (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campus universitaire de Metz.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Campus universitaire de Metz.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on SaarLorLux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on SaarLorLux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal Greater Region into Greater Region of SaarLorLux

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merged. Heanor (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Greater Region into Greater Region of SaarLorLux. --Heanor (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Region_of_SaarLorLux&oldid=1207416818"