Talk:Paris/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Geojournal (talk · contribs) 21:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I intend to review this article as soon as possible. Geo ^talk 21:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead and Tools (First Impression)

·Already having thoroughly reviewed the lead, I have found a (relatively) small amount of mistakes. The second sentence reads "...and a population in 2013 of 2,229,621 within its administrative limits." Clearly, this should be reworded to "...and a population of 2,229,621 in 2013 within its administrative limits." to improve the prose. Other than this, the lead is decent for good article qualification. It's worth mentioning though, that using Checklinks, I discovered the article to have 13 dead links, an OK number for an article this size. I have tagged them for deletion (and hopefully replacement). Geo ^talk 22:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall (Final Thoughts)

After having read the article, I've reached a few conclusions. First, I would say that while this article may seem large at first glance, the topic is a comprehensive one that requires this level of detail. Considering that, the article does not go into any unnecessary detail and the prose is excellent for a GA. It is verifiable, containing no original research or copyright issues. Citations are sufficient but it is crucial to note that there are 4 tags and 13 dead links (tagged as mentioned). Likely due to the large amounts of varied editing this article receives, it remains neutral at all times even in areas one wouldn't expect (Media and International Relations, for example). It is stable (especially with the pending changes protection, though semi-protection for such an article might be more fitting in the future) and the images offer a cohesive comparison with the textual information.

However, before promoting this article to GA status, I would strongly recommend the citation needed tags and 13 dead links, especially, be replaced. I will try to do so myself but any help would be much appreciated. Looking hopeful so far... --Geo ^talk 20:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment I would suggest checking the article against the issues raised at talk:Paris/GA2 which led to its delisting from GA previously. Nthep (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment I've taken care of the dead links and missing citations. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of those issues, Nthep! I have checked it out and determined that even considering the lengthy subject, this lead is way overdone. The rest of the issues, as far as I can see, have been resolved. I will continue to shorten the lead after which point I'd deem the article a GA. Geo ^talk 22:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've resolved issues with the lead, eliminating and partially replacing redundant information, annexing it elsewhere in the article as needed. I am ready to promote the article and will do so if no further objections are received in a timely manner. Thank you for your help! Geo ^talk 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well written after verification due to large numbers of varied edits from editors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Required cleanup and improvements to the lead but after that was otherwise fully compliant.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes, this page meets the layout standards.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Contained 13 dead links and 4 {citation needed} tags but were resolved in a timely fashion and so passes the criteria.
	2c. it contains no original research.	As far as is discernible, the page doesn't have any original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	After checking duplication tools and giving a good read out with manual checks, it's safe to say there are no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article does address main aspects of its topic (Like history, geography, economy and so on), occasionally going into excessive detail but that is very minimal.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article covers quite a broad topic, but it does not go into unnecessary detail considering the variety and depth on the topic provided.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article, due to its publicity, rarely had and currently does not have POV or neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This article had seen a number of conflicts in the past, but they were resolved and action for page protection has been taken which seems to be efficient in preventing instability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are cohesive and there are no problems therewith.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All the pictures are relevant and have captions that add to their value.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article did suffer from some issues in the past, such as those in categories 1b, 2b, and 5, (mentioned in previous failed nominations) especially but they have all been resolved in a timely manner resulting in my promotion of this article to GA.

I would be interested in hearing your (objective) view about the parts of the article that go into 'excessive detail', if you don't mind... thanks for all! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)