Wikipedia:Peer review/Paris/archive2

Paris

The Paris article has been undergoing several minor changes over the past months, but has had much added acclaim over the same period: it is now A-class in three seperate categories! I think now may be the time to make those last final improvement that will raise it (finally) to FA class. This is a major article, so quality (and precision) is not to be taken lightly! Any constructive suggestion would be helpful. THEPROMENADER 12:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA reviewers tend flip a lid if more than a sentence goes unsourced. Let alone a paragraph. As the Paris article has unsourced sections, then I think there still needs to be a lot of work in rectifying that. Ironically, the lead is the most heavily sourced section, but leads don't generally require references, as the material should be sourced below. I recommend taking a toothpick to the article and beginning the laboriously tedious task of adding references to each detail. I think Sheffield was the last city to pass FA, but I doubt even that would get through now due to lack of sources.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to know more than a thing or two about this, perhaps could you help by adding an invisible  or the like tag to sentences you think need sources? There is, of course, the ^{[citation needed]} template as well - but things can get pretty ugly with too many of those. Anyhow, thanks for the input. THEPROMENADER 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ThePromenader. Rather than go through the article and make a bit of a mess of it, what I've done is detail where I believe the FA crowd will expect to see citations in this sandbox: User:Zleitzen/Paris sandbox. My flags have not been an exact science - but it should give an idea of what is required. It may look daunting, but sections like the history section could be covered by only 2-3 main sources, preferably reputable historical book sources, with other points patched together with web citations. Some of the flags may seem so obvious as to not need citations, and much of it I knew to be easily verifiable. However, they'll still need to be visibly cited to escape the FA hawks. It's an exceptionally well written article by wikipedia's standards - I added strike-throughs to only 2-3 sentences, these I believed were a touch too personal and bordering on original research. However, I do think the article is too long to pass FA at its current length. The education section in particular could be farmed out to a sub article leaving a paragraph or so remaining.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]