Talk:Bovet Fleurier/GA1

GA Review

Protonk comments

• Images Image copyright and fair use rationales check out. Editors may want to replace the narrative summaries with templates for PD and FU attribution, but I don't see a problem so long as proper rationale is provided.

Note. I read the talk page discussion of the Bovet watch ad PD claim. The questions raised there are legitimate, but the only real questions (for me) is whether or not the watch ad was produced prior to 1978 and if a copyright claim was filed explicitly. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• POV The lead could probably be refactored to be more neutral. Statements like "It currently produces high-end artistic watches with a style that references its history, and is known for its high-quality enameling, engraving, and its eight-day tourbillon." strike me as effusive praise. This: "The original Bovet watches are also famous for being one of the first watches to emphasize the beauty of the movements with its skeletonized views and highly decorative movements." while also largely subjective seems to be a claim that might be supported by a source. I'm not sure that I see one in the body text that supports this precise claim, though.

• History I'm a little confused as I read through the history section. The narrative seems to move from biographical to corporate with little notice. My suggestions:

• Break up the history section into an early biography of Bovet and Vaucher, a section on the chinese market, and a section for the post 1864 company history. This will probably clear up a great deal of the trouble.
• Eliminate some of the speculative claims about the watchmaker and china. These are not original research, as most of the claims appear in the sources, but they don't help the flow of the section.

• Wording This history section (and the lead) contain a great deal of "it is said" "it is guessed" and so forth. Eliminate these statements and see if the resulting sentence (e.g. "It is guessed that The establishment of Bovet in London was because of the ease of shipping the watches to China on frequent English ships.") and see if the sources support that claim.

• Watches section This also has POV problems. The source for this claim is purely promotional and should not be used in this fashion in an encyclopedia. suggestions:

• Stick strictly to facts.
• Ensure that this section provides some clue of how the company is important in a larger context. Why is the style of watch unique? How are the movements unique?

• References Claims in this article are scrupulously cited. Some of the references cited are apparently self published websites or catalogues, but this isn't too troubling to me as few of the claims made in this article are extremely contentious. The article does, however, rely heavily on one self published website: ten inlince citations resolve to [1].

• Google books
• Published scholarly paper

• Overall This is a very informative article on an interesting subject. Context is provided and sources appear (for the ones I checked) to verify the text. The Manual of Style is followed for the most part, with some minor exceptions not listed above. The article needs to be clarified, reworded and reordered but it certainly has potential to be a good article. In my opinion, if a substantial portion of the improvements I suggested above get made, this should sail through. Protonk (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up and comments

Suggested changes have been implemented, as far as they are understood. Pictures have been added as illustrations. The citations linked through Google mention the company or its watches by name only, and provide no substantive information. The "Arts of Asia" article looks very useful, but it may take a few months before I am able to view it. It appears that all of your suggestions have been addressed. I will re-nominate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)