Talk:Pont du Gard/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• will start soon! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

review

• Some problems in the first review remain.

• The The Nîmes aqueduct is not mentioned as such in the lede. Thus it's confusing that the first section is "The Nîmes aqueduct". Elsewhere in the article it's called "The Roman aqueduct". Recommend calling that section "Aqueduct" and "The" shouldn't be there anyway.
• The second section heading is "The Pont du Gard" (the name of the article). Per section headings, the article's name should not be repeated in the section heading. Recommend calling it "Bridge".

• I've retitled both sections. Prioryman (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• In the "Aqueduct" section, a paragraph starts out "The spring still exists and is the site of a small modern pumping station." Then it describes various problems described in the past tense. e.g. "The carbonates caused significant problems for the maintenance." (Is this still true?) "Another threat was posed by vegetation penetrating the stone lid of the channel." (Is this still true?) "It required constant maintenance by circitores, workers responsible for the aqueduct's upkeep, who crawled along the conduit scrubbing the walls clean and removing any vegetation. (Was this in the past, but not now? How do they deal with these problems now?)

• They don't. The problems described were the ones faced by the Romans. I've reworded this bit to make it clearer. Prioryman (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• In the two adjacent paragraphs beginning "The method of construction is fairly well understood." and "The builders would have made extensive use of cranes and block and tackle pulleys to lift the stones into place" use the word "would" six times. How about "[historians blah and blah] speculate that...". Or Some other wording? Even "could" would be better.

• There's not much speculation involved, we know how the Romans built things because they described it, left pictures of themselves building things and some of the tools they used have survived. I've reworded it a bit to reduce the repetition. Prioryman (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Under "Tourism" there is a paragraph starting: "The bridge has had a long association with French monarchs seeking to associate themselves with a symbol of Roman imperial power." There is no explanation how this relates to tourism; rather is seems to relate to politics. Should it be moved to "History"? (Does Obama going to Colorado because of the recent shooting there relate to tourism?)

• I categorised it under "Tourism" because the French monarchs effectively pioneered tourism to the Pont du Gard - a series of kings and emperors visited it while on tours of the region, and their interest raised its profile; because of their influence (and in some cases direct sponsorship) artists also went there to paint it. Yes, it had a lot to do with politics, but it was also a matter of aesthetics - it's very different from Obama in Colorado; he's not there to see the sights. Prioryman (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• In the lede the "History" seems to be mainly represented by its roll as a toll road and as a tourist destination. Do you think the lede fulfills the requirement of lead?

• I usually aim for about 400-500 words for a lead; currently it's 440 words, which I think should be sufficient. The "History" is covered in both the second and third paragraphs of the lead. Prioryman (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

• Well done and congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)