Talk:Faidherbe Bridge/GA3

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There are a number of shortcomings regarding the MOS. I would recommend that the author(s) read the Manual of Style to keep up to date with the newest proceedings. For instance, years and dates are never to be wikilinked. All metric values must be converted to old units using the convert template. There are a number of boldface occurrences throughout the article—only the first instance of the name, supplemented by synonyms, should be bold. Do not just link to francs, but instead link to French franc, if that is the currency used at the time, and if applicable, use the ISO currency code. There is no need to repeat the link to franc after the first occurance. Companies, committees etc. are not to be in italics. Avoid linking to the same article multiple times, and to common, irrelevant words. Also remember to check if links are to disambiguation pages. There is no need to link to common measureing units like m (by the way, m links to the letter, not to meter). It would be nice if you could add the coordinates (see coord). Section headings should never include redundant inclusion of the article topic, for instance use "Opening" instead of "Opening of the bridge".
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * My main concern is that the article is virtually unreferenced. Several sections have no refs, and the inline citiations seem to placed wrongly. For instance, "The rehabilitaion works[9]..." should have the reference at the end of the sentence. All references should use the cite template. Instead of repeating the same references again, use the syntax, and recall the same reference with  . Choose a different name (instead of pickaname) for each reference that is repeated. I presume you have used the bibliography, in which case inline citiations are also needed. For instance, use   to create notes that specify which book is used where, and what pages are referenced. The books should be cited within the cite book template under bibliography. If an entire paragraph is cited from the same source, one ref at the end is sufficient.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:Faidherbestamp.jpg does not have a valid fair use rationale. As a stamp under fair use, it can only be used in an article about the stamp itself, not about the topic that the stamp depicts. Therefore, I have removed the image. The rest of the images are okay.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold. If all the matters are seen to, the article should be ready for GA. Good work so far, and good luck improving it further. Arsenikk (talk)  14:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, that was all the main body seen to. I am sorry, but there was one thing I forgot to mention during the review; the lead is a bit short. The problem is not so much the length, as that the lead is supposed to summarize, not introduce the topic. As a rule of thumb, the lead should, in addition to a short introduction (1–2 sentences) include at least the main point form each section. At present it provides a background of the bridge. Again, sorry for missing this the first time. Arsenikk (talk)  22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be it all done. Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk)  11:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am placing the article on hold. If all the matters are seen to, the article should be ready for GA. Good work so far, and good luck improving it further. Arsenikk (talk)  14:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, that was all the main body seen to. I am sorry, but there was one thing I forgot to mention during the review; the lead is a bit short. The problem is not so much the length, as that the lead is supposed to summarize, not introduce the topic. As a rule of thumb, the lead should, in addition to a short introduction (1–2 sentences) include at least the main point form each section. At present it provides a background of the bridge. Again, sorry for missing this the first time. Arsenikk (talk)  22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be it all done. Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk)  11:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)