Talk:Eiffel Tower/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 09:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to fail this one. There is a lot of work to be done on the referencing before it is up to GA standard, and I can't see happening quickly. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * Some issues, but solvable with a good copyedit.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * "Subsequent events" section lapses into one sentence paragraphs; it really needs to be formed up as proper prose.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * Some problems - what is Loyrette's work, for example? Or Harvie's? Origins of some of the material are missing, etc.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * Large sections are unreferenced, including: Design of the tower; Passenger lifts; Economics; Reproductions; Communications; Image copyright claims; Taller structures

(c) it contains no original research.


 * Hard to tell, as the referencing is missing from many sections.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * The later history of the tower seems limited.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * The weighting towards the section on passenger lifts seems high.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Broadly, although the copyright section feels a little biased.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Appears so.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * File:Eiffel tower at Exposition Universelle, Paris, 1889.jpg needs an anonymous EU tag, rather than a life + 70 one, as the author is unknown and the image could theoretically still be in copyright
 * File:WWII, Europe, France, "American soldiers watch as the Tricolor flies from the Eiffel Tower again" - NARA - 196289.jpg needs a French tag to cover French copyright law
 * File:Jeton souvenir de l'ascension automatique de la Tour Eiffel.jpg needs a tag to cover the copyright of the coin, as well as the photograph

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * File:Eiffel.jpg has been deleted
 * The Gallery section does not seem to follow the MOS guidance on Galleries.
 * The number of images creates a "wall of images" on the right hand side of the screen on my machine - the number does seem a bit high.

Comment
I've added a fair bit to this article, & generally agree with the above:
 * in my opinion the structure of the article is a bit of a mess.
 * Agree wholeheartedly that the section on the lifts is far too long and lacks references. Anybody who cares with access to a decent library will be able to find them fully covered in The Engineer. My library has recently chucked out all their copies of this journal, so can't help.
 * The references using the official site are useless, they only land you on the site homepage.
 * As noted, probably overburdened with pictures.
 * IMO the bulleted list works well for the later history, which is more a string of events rather than a narrative.TheLongTone (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)