Talk:Arc Héré

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for good article critiques[edit]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arc Héré/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 20:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ikjbagl|, and thank you for creating the article about the Arc Héré. It's a much needed addition to Wikipedia, and you've made a good start. I do however think you have quite a bit to go before the article is ready for being classified as a Good Article. My main concerns after having read through the article once are the scope of the article and the sources used. First, the scope: at the moment, the article is too short. The history of the arch is briefly described and the design as well. But you do not go into any real detail. I think a minimum requirement would be a dedicated paragraph about the appearance and design of the arc, just as you have included one about the history. This paragraph could perhaps also be expanded? The sources used are, secondly, of mixed quality. For the article to pass as a Good Article, some more proper sources would need to be invoked and probably you could scuttle some of the less reliable. I'm sure there are plenty, you seem to master French and there must be good, reliable sources in French available? These are my initial observations. If you wish, you can address them and get back to me and I will make a more thorough assessment, going through the article in detail. But I imagine there's quite a bit of work to be done here. On the other hand, we could also fail the article, you can take all the time you like to gather sources and re-write it, and then re-nominate it any time you want - as you prefer. I encourage you to study the good article criteria in some detail, and take a look at some other architecture articles already listed as Good Articles to give an idea of what we should be striving for. Good luck and let me know how I can help you. Yakikaki (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yakikaki: Thank you, this is the kind of critique I was looking for! I will start by addressing the areas you've mentioned and see what else I can expand from there. If I want to edit and have you come back to re-check, is there a time limit for that? I might work on it this week but I am not sure. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The whole GA review process is supposed to take about seven days, give or take. At this point I would however recommend you to cancel the nomination, make an overhaul of the article and re-nominate it. I think there's quite a bit of work to be done here. Otherwise, give me a ping within the next seven days when you think it's ready for review and I'll look at it. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Thank you for the advice. Can I withdraw the nomination by just deleting the template above? I don't want to screw anything up with the automated processes. Ikjbagl (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem! No, I think I'll have to "fail" it, but don't worry - you can renominate it whenever you want (and as many times as you like). Good luck! (PS. I was actually in Nancy just four days ago and saw the magnificent arch - happy you wrote the article about it!) Yakikaki (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Yakikaki was invoked but never defined (see the help page).