Talk:Paris Métro Line 12/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 17:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed looking article. I'll take a look over the next few days and then start to leave comments. SilkTork *^YES! 17:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

The images have been scanned from a source which is not declared. They have an inappropriate licence on them. I have ammended a few, but when I came to File:Metro de Paris - Ligne 12 - Station Saint-Lazare.jpg I stopped. The uploader has declared that the author is unknown, but without giving us the source we do not know. The image may have been scanned from a book in which a copyright has been declared. The images in which I have ammended the licence may also be copyrighted. Without a source we cannot tell, and infringing copyright is a serious issue. We have to err on the side of caution. The images are of excellent encyclopedic quality, and it would be a shame to remove them, but we need the correct source information or they will be removed. SilkTork *^YES! 12:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the previous (and recent) GA review - Talk:Paris Métro Line 12/GA1 - and the matter of the images was raised there. This new nomination has been called without addressing that fundamental (and serious) issue. I have now removed the images - they are great images, but they cannot be replaced until the licencing issue has been resolved. SilkTork *^YES! 12:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote back to the uploader on wp:fr (he is an active user). It may not be the best time of the year though. --Anneyh (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also raised the issue with the user on Commons. I am concerned that some of the images were scanned from the Tricoire book; however, the user is experienced and should be able to clarify the provenance. Since the article with those images is an FA on frwiki, I would hope that the source can be resolved easily. Acroterion _(talk) 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original uploader on french wikipedia said that he scanned the images from RATP documents, though he wasn't willing to provide much more assistance seeing as he had worked on the topic over a year ago and the article was a stable FA there. I agree that the provenance is unclear, but also see an argument that they are public domain since they are his work based on public documents. I agree with Silktork that it is a shame to lose them but we have other freely licensed illustrations for the article. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images that are left in the article have appropriate licence tags, so we can continue with the GA review. The images I removed were of very high encyclopaedic value, so I would like to see them returned. Of those that are left I am wondering if they could be used better in the article, and if all the images are needed? There is a wonderful image of graffiti, though that would be more appropriate in an article on graffiti rather than here, as graffiti is not mentioned in the text. The image - Entrance to the Lamarck Caulaincourt station - is quite artistic, but, again, I wonder why it is here. There is a tangential relationship in that the topic of the image is walking to a Metro station which is on Line 12, but equally the image could be used in an article on steps, or rain, as these things are also in the image. What encyclopaedic value to Paris Métro Line 12 does it offer? It appears more of a distraction, or an ornament, than an appropriate image. The images that appear to be of value are the informative mosaic tiles, the headwall direction indicator, the rolling stock in action, the entrance to the workshop, and one (possibly both) of the images showing station decoration. And the route map. The others do not appear to be appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 17:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree entirely on the images you have just removed add alot to the article and that their licensing is dubious at best. We should continue to verify their origin, again I agree that but it is not a deciding factor for GA status.

Regarding the other images, those which directly illustrate a point made in the text are of the highest value. When good images of the stations are available it is nice to include them and they do add illustrative , and yes, decorative value to the article; though their arrangement can always be changed. The caption of Lamarck entrance for instance could be re-written to point out that it is in the side of a hill, the problem of tunnelling through Montmartre is mentioned. --Ktlynch (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not completely satisfied that the Lamarck image is the most appropriate or helpful, I think it does meet GA criteria. Images are now acceptable. SilkTork *^YES! 13:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Line A of the Nord-Sud Company, a rival of the "Parisian Metropolitan Rail Company" (CMP), was proposed to the City of Paris" - what was the "City of Paris" at the time - this article, Council of Paris, suggests that at the time there wasn't actually a city authority. SilkTork *^YES! 16:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Council of Paris article is not very clear, nor a reliable source, but what it seems to say is that Paris is at once a city and a departement, not that is was an anarchistic commune. Here "City" refers to the governing powers without overcomplicating the number of actors mentioned in the article.--Ktlynch (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a reliable source that indicates to whom the Nord-Sud Company made their proposal? Might be a useful and interesting encyclopaedic fact. Not a deal breaker if the city authorities at the time cannot be located, though the phrase might be better rewritten to avoid guesswork - stabbing in the dark, especially if the stab is wide of the mark, looks poor for an encyclopaedia. "...was proposed by engineer Jean-Baptiste Berlier." is vague, but would be acceptable. SilkTork *^YES! 16:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until 1964 Paris was not a department, but was part of Seine (department). There was no Mayor of Paris but only one mayor for each arrondissement. In French, "Ville de Paris" sounds pretty clear, but fr:Mairie de Paris has no counterpart here. I'll try to clarify the point. --Anneyh (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remeber looking into that point The polities of a new technology : Electricity and the city railway in London and Paris, c.1880-1910 paragraph 24 refers to N. Evenson, Paris: A Century of Change, 1878 – 1978 page 109 that probably has more details but is not available easily, but Acroterion may have it! --Anneyh (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is mostly quite serviceable, conveying quite a lot of information. However, there are places where it's not clear what is intended, or there are minor errors. I've corrected minor errors I've noticed while reading through, though there may be more. And I've marked places where some clarification may be required. SilkTork *^YES! 16:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working through these and have caught most instances. --Ktlynch (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are references and a reference section. The reference section mixes full and short citation. Full citation is the main system used on Wikipedia. Full citation is more helpful for the general reader. Short citation is acceptable, and tends to be used in scholarly essays (and is rather liked for that reason by some editors), though it is an alternative system. As there are both systems in place, it might be better for the general reader to move toward the full citation method, though this is not a deal breaker, and the article would be acceptable for GA criteria with mixed citations. There are some statements which are conveying statistics or important information that may be queried - it may be that some of these are later on supported by end paragraph cites, I haven't yet checked out the sources, but it would be useful to make closer inline citations. Other statements appear totally unsupported. I have marked a number I have found, though there may be more - I was skimming through in places. I tend to question mark the OR criteria until I've checked out the sources to ensure what is said in the article matches what is in the sources. I feel that the referencing shouldn't be too much of an issue if the French version is a FA - it just needs tidying up. SilkTork *^YES! 16:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of the shorter citation style for books, especially when they are main sources for the article. It makes the citations easier to read, full bibliographic information need not be listed on each inline citation. Though we need consistency within the article. --Ktlynch (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this article - it contains a lot of information; however, I am concerned that it appears difficult to sometimes get at reliable facts. For example - Nord-Sud Company has a slightly different take on how Line 12 was set up. This article says, "Line A of the Nord-Sud Company, a rival of the "Parisian Metropolitan Rail Company" (CMP), was proposed to the City of Paris by engineer Jean-Baptiste Berlier", while Nord-Sud Company says "The North-South was the initiative of Jean-Baptiste Berlier ... The Société du chemin de fer électrique souterrain Nord-Sud de Paris (French for "Paris North-South underground electrical railway company", abbreviated to the Nord-Sud company) was created in July 1902 and replaced Berlier and Janicot as the concessionaire." Only one of those can be true. Either Line A was set up by the Nord-Sud Company, or it was set up by Berlier who was then replaced by the Nord-Sud Company. Given that this article later says "The City Council liked the plan and on 28 December 1901 granted the tender for a Montparnasse-Montmartre line to Messrs Janicot and Berlier" it appears that the statement that it was Berlier who proposed the line, and that the Nord-Sud Company was set up later, is more accurate. I am at the point where I'm not sure I can rely on the information in this article, and this may be true of other questioning readers. I would be reassured if I could check the facts. There are English language sources which have written about the Paris Metro, and it might be worthwhile for someone to do some research to get some English language sources so readers can check facts and be reasured. SilkTork *^YES! 23:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reads more like Berlier was one of the primary movers which led to the foundation of the company. When the plan was approved a company was incorporated which assumed operation and liability for the project. The article says in the next paragraph that the concession was transferred from the two men to the company. --Ktlynch (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to cover the main aspects - though I typically do some research before passing this, just to make sure nothing major turns up in my research which should be in the article. Also, there doesn't appear to be any section which is too detailed. The language is sober, and there doesn't appear to be any bias. SilkTork *^YES! 02:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

The article contains a good deal of information and generally works well. It's an interesting read. Much of the work to be done is general tidying up, and I have placed tags on the article itself to indicate where a clean up is needed. The two obvious fails are that the tourism section is in list format, and that there are unsourced sections. It's problematic that all sources are in French, and the main sources are texts which are not available online and are unlikely to be easily available outside of France, but I'll see what I can do to check some of the information. In the meantime the work that needs doing is attending to the clean up tags that I've placed on the article. I'll let significant contribuors and WikiProjects know, and I'll put this on hold for seven days while the work is done. Any questions, please ping me. SilkTork *^YES! 02:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there is still come citation work that needs doing. I will extend the hold until the new year and re-evaluate then. SilkTork *^YES! 13:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silktork, and thanks for your ongoing patience and interest. I've added in a lot of missing citations, combined the list section into the route description, adding interest there, elimnating the list and condensing the table of contents. I've also worked over most sections contributing little fixes and clarified everywhere you've asked for it. Unfortunately I have little access to sources at the moment, though hopefuly in the new year I will be able to go to a good library. Are you satisfied with the shape of the article save the remaining tags? Best wishes and Merry Christmas,--Ktlynch (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to put this on hold for another 7 days to allow sources to be found. SilkTork *^YES! 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this is close to a pass, I'll hold for another 7 days to allow cites to be found, or a discussion to see if the article can meet GA criteria with the disputed statements removed. Give me a ping if you have any questions. SilkTork *^YES! 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people's motivation or energy runs out. I'll have to close this now as a fail, as there has been no discussion opened, and no work done on citing the statements and section tagged. I do think that on the whole it's a decent article, but it doesn't quite meet the GA criteria because of the unsourced material. I do hope that someone completes the sourcing (the information came from somewhere originally - so it's out there somewhere), and nominates again. SilkTork *^YES! 15:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]