Talk:Cubzac-les-Ponts/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
I had a quick read through of the article and I've wikilinked a few terms. Overall this article appears to be at the right level for GA, however there are quite a few (about five) citation needed flags that will need to be fixed before I award GA.

I'm now going through the article in more detail, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I will mostly be concentrating on "problems", so if I don't have much to say on a particular section/subsection that indicates that its generally OK. I will be producing an Overall summary at the end. Pyrotec (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Geography -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC) - I think "carries" is a French word meaning quarry. So this sentence is probably trying to say "....some of which have been used as carries as quarries/source of stone/etc.
 * Corrected. 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Climate -
 * This not a GA requirement, so it is not mandatory. A table of weather data, month by month, such as in Dayton, Ohio, or East Riding of Yorkshire would enhance the article.
 * I have already looked for the information, but I haven't been able to find historical data. If I find a way to get hold of the data, I'll be sure to put it in. 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Economy -
 * What is given is well referenced; but its not the full story. We are given the average income, no hotels/camp site, the type of agriculture and the size/proportion of farm land. We don't know what the people do; so I would suggest that this section is expanded / or reworked.
 * I am working on this. The information is quite hard to find! 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is France, but it might to useful to look WikiProject Cities, especially WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, WikiProject Canadian communities, even WikiProject Cities/US Guideline for some ideas.
 * I had a look at www.statistiques-locales.insee.fr but, unfortunately, it does not provide this information.

... stopping for now. Pyrotec (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * History -
 * A citation is needed for the Simon of Montford occupation.


 * Ancient crossing methods -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC) - The "art-et-histoire.com" citation, used several times, seems to be absent from the Reference section.
 * It is the third reference under "Web"
 * Sorry, I didn't see it. Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Current bridges -
 * Eiffel bridge -
 * There is a citation needed flag that needs to be addressed.
 * This is not a mandatory requirement. I note that there are several common citations, such as "Carmona 2002, p. 160", that are cited individually. These could be addressed by using " " for the first occurrence and " " for subsequent occurrences.
 * Ah, yes, thanks for the tip. I will probably implement this. 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Railway bridge -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC) - I'm not sure what the word "founds" is, could it be "foundations"?
 * It should read "funds", corrected.
 * The second half of this paragraph is unreferenced (possibly those used in the first half, could be used again?).
 * Yes, I will try and look back, because I'm pretty sure the information came from one of the cited sources. 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

... stopping for now.Pyrotec (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the work done so far. It feels good to have a reviewer. 86.9.198.24 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

...This is as far I as got. The article is likely to pass GA this time round, but its going to be eight days before I can do any more work.
 * Heritage -
 * P.S. The drop down list of mayors and historical population data table are unreferenced, you have a week before I get round to reviewing them.
 * I'm sorry for the delay, but I need a holiday. Pyrotec (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on producing an informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)