Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metz/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 17:28, 7 July 2012 [1].

Metz

Featured article candidates/Metz/archive1

Nominator(s): Bava Alcide57

On behalf of the contributors to Metz article, I am submitting the article for featuring for the first time. Indeed, we believe that the article is of interest to the readership of wikipedia and meets the criteria required for such nomination.

Strong oppose per criteria 1c. There are many unsourced comments. To show a couple:

A group of crusaders entered Metz and forced the important Jewish community of the city to convert to catholicism, killing 22 people who refused baptism.
As a historic Garrison town, Metz has also been largely influenced by military architecture throughout its history. The city is famous for its yellow limestone architecture, due to the extensive use of the Jaumont stone, and gained recognition for its pioneering, innovative urban ecology policy.

Also, there are sections with only single sources. Looking at the talk page, the article is only C-class. I suggest you put in the article as a Good article nominee before attempting the FA. A peer review may be beneficial. Regards. JZ CL 19:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviewing. However, the given examples are referenced either in the sentence right before (about the massacres during the first crusade and about the architecture) or in the extending text below about the subject (see section city scape-urban planning and city scape-military architecture). All sources are given avoiding excessive repetitions in the reference section, but the text is seen as an integrated whole. Finally, the talk page doesn't mention the recent, large improvements of the article. I guess your comment is the early end point of the featuring process (with a strong oppose), but in my opinion, the reviewing should be based on the full, careful reading of the article on its own. Nonetheless, good comment about the per review. Sincerely yours. Alcide Bava57 21:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Several of the book refs have no page numbers and the ones that seem to be in French don't have the |language=French parameter.PumpkinSky talk 23:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not doing a full review, but some general comments for possible improvements:

Lead second para - The listing of historical periods should provide more factual information and context - even if it doubles the size then. Maybe skip 1-2 less interesting periods and provide more background for the remaining ones. Avoid pure lists, whenever possible.
Tone - "Tremendous", "boasts", "world-class". Try to avoid too colorful language, state facts as neutral as possible.
Lead 4th and 5th para - not strictly the same topic, but would look better combined in 1 para.
section headers - avoid using the article title in section headers (there is a MOS-rule against it, but i am too lazy to look it up ;) ).
Etymology - all terms could use a timeline. If an exact time is not available, maybe a source offers atleast an approximate period, when the terms were commonly used.
"In ancient times, the town was known as "city of Mediomatrici" being inhabited by the tribe." ==> missing word, "... of the same name." or something similar.
"During the 5th century AD, the name is abbreviated in "Mettis", ..." ==> "abbreviated" seems to be the wrong term here, this process has a special etymological term. Please check a RS.
History - "making the town [as] its principal oppidum." ==> grammar
"The Celtic Mediomatrici tribe inhabited the land surrounding the town from 450 BC until the Roman conquest, ..." ==> What happened with the tribe - did it migrate elsewhere or was it assimilated? In general: try to combine separate facts with some context to get a more narrative prose.
"One of the last Roman strongholds to surrender to the Germanic tribes, the city was nonetheless captured by the Huns of Attila in 451.[23]..." ==> Metz surrendered to Alemanni and Franks, but the Huns captured it? A summary history can't have every detail, but this sentence is confusing without a little more information (a specific date for the first surrender would probably clarify the situation).
"The reign of Queen Brunhilda imbued [specially] the town with great splendor." ==> grammar, also "great splendor" is far too enthusiastic (replace with factual info, what the Queen really added to Metz). Check for similar tone problems throughout.
Politics "As every commune[s] ..." ==> typo
City administrative divisions - a map of those divisions would be "nice to have". Also the listing could be improved with more background information (1-2 typical features of each division). The addition of tourist destinations per division feels unencyclopedic.
Transportations - Waterways ==> Does Metz have a river port or just a marina for smaller ships? Is the marina/port really part of the city's "transportation" system?
Main Sights - each section would read a lot better in prose instead of listings. I also suggest to reduce the number of objects to 3-5 per section, but provide more background facts for each building (briefly). You could also drop the sub-section headers, when you have 1 para per type of building.
Notable people linked to Metz ==> empty section? When you want to keep the list-link, consider creating a "see also"-section with some interesting links to additional Metz information.
International relations "Metz is a [fellow] member of the QuattroPole(FR)(DE)" ==> "fellow" doesn't fit here, also "QuattroPole" could use a red link (as a possible new article).
"[The] Metz is also twin town with:" ==> grammar, "also" can be dropped - check for "also", "however" and similar filler phrases. Most times they can be removed without loosing meaning.

I have only briefly skimmed the text, so will abstain from a formal vote. But the article seems to have some basic issues (mainly organisation, tone and listy prose), which need more work. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this great reviewing. I made some corrections in that direction (integrating the previous comments too) in order to improve the article. However, I don't think I can technically do all of them. Again, many thanks.

Hello Bava Alcide57, please remember to finish your comments with 4 tildes to add your userID. Glad i could help with some points, but i believe, that JZCL's suggestion to get more input with a peer review and good article nomination first is the best way to continue. Not to discourage you and the other contributors, but the article has still some way to go before FA-level - most structuring and polishing should already be done before nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Sorry, but the lack of sources in some places, as mentioned before, is a deal-breaker for me. I also am unsure about the level of the writing, if this is any indication: "The Metz Handball is a Team Handball club is the current French women's champion and displaying 17 wins in French Woman First League championship, 7 wins in French Women League Cup, and 4 wins in French Women F.A. Cup." Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time, suggest peer review to gain further suggestions for improvement. Some comments:

Referencing format is quite inconsistent. Book sources should include page numbers, web sources should include publishers
Captions need editing for grammar. Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Article text needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow - for example, "an ambitious policy of the tourism development"
As France does not have freedom of panorama, all images that depict three-dimensional works (including buildings) need to account for the copyright of both the photo and the work itself
Images tagged with life+70 also need a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments. This candidate is poorly prepared and, having read the article I fully agree with the reviewers' comments and recommendations. Graham Colm (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.