Talk:Montsoreau/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, happy to take this on :) Nice article but has been in the queue for too long. Given the length I will post my comments on this gradually. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 12:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay so here are my preliminary comments. The article looks nice but needs plenty of work to meet the GA criteria mainly in prose quality; a copyedit might be in order. I will keep adding, and the review will be open as long as there is activity. If there is no response from your side for 7 days I will have to fail this nom. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 21:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

General

 * Images - no copyright issues or other problems with uploads
 * No dablinks
 * I see numerous duplinks. Make sure to link items only on first mention, once in the lead and/or once in the main body. You can use this user script to get the duplink detector (unless you have it already), it is a huge help.✅
 * Sources -
 * Citations - can be improved in formatting. A few examples:
 * Include the "|trans-title=" parameter wherever applicable for the ease of non-French readers. "language=" needs to be used consistently too.✅
 * For ref 14 instead of "subscribers only" it should be "url-access=registration". Check for other instances✅
 * Avoid all caps as in ref 22 (check for others)✅

Lead

 * There are citations in the lead. Per WP:MOSLEAD the lead should typically be a summary of major aspects of the article and not state facts independently. The facts must be sourced within main text hence the lead should not require citations✅
 * Moreover the lead does not seem to have a proper sequence of facts. How does Château de Montsoreau come into the picture and take the whole of the 2nd para suddenly? Needs a major rewrite.✅
 * The village is listed among the most beautiful villages of France  May be say "Les Plus Beaux Villages de France (most beautiful villages of France)" instead, to highlight it is an official association. Repeat in main text on first mention✅
 * and part of the Loire Valley UNESCO World Heritage Site "is" part of?✅

Etymology

 *  Mons or Monte (mount) refers to the rocky promontory Foreign words should be italicized ✅
 * Inline citations missing✅
 * A new section to list just 2 variations is unnecessary. Just include it in main text✅

History

 * Mention the name of the river even if it was mentioned in the previous section.✅
 * Traces of first settlements and the oldest remains  add "in Montsoreau"✅
 * Saying "AD" might be helpful for the years✅
 * Henry II of England Besieges and takes Montsoreau in 1152. should be in past tense and sentence case✅
 * The latter besieged the castrum They?✅
 * The history of the small city of Montsoreau is highly intricated with The start is not very encyclopedic, and "intricated with" is not a proper phase.✅
 * Charles vii and Louis xi installed royal power more errors✅

After a brief reading of the rest of the article, I think I should wait for some response from your side assuring sufficient work can be done on this article during the GA review to improve the prose and lack of inline citations everywhere. Else I believe this should be failed, copyedited thoroughly, properly developed per the GA criteria and then renominated. I will wait for a week before I add any more comments. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 21:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, the first round of modifications is done. --Suavemarimagno (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Due to some real life business I will take a day or two to respond. I have not gone through the changes in detail, but in the meantime I would suggest you to go through the article and try to fix grammatical errors, and ensure all sections of the article have inline citations which is a must for verifiability. Happy new year in advance :) Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 15:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Sainsf. Very Happy New Year to you and your family! :) --Suavemarimagno (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright so I looked at the article again, seems we need to reword and rearrange things significantly for the GA tag. So here are the comments again (keeping the lead for last, need to fix the main body first): Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 15:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Etymology
 * Subheadings are not needed. Just follow the timeline in chronological paragraphs. And the name variations does not have to be a bulleted list. Just turn it into a sentence at the end of the section (inline citations are missing for the variations mentioned).
 * "Montsoreau" itself is not a variation. Also you need to add sources inline for the names.
 * Also mention if these variations are still in use or are old or even ancient.
 * The name Mount Soreau Start with something like "The name Montsoreau derives from Mount Soreau". I assume that is what you mean, so the reader should be able to understand that is why you start with "Mount Soreau".
 * For the bracketed names right after, mention they are in French. Maybe use Template:lang-fr.
 * at the end of the Roman period maybe give the approximate time period in years
 * Alexandre Dumas is giving another origin "suggests another origin" reads better
 * The quote does not need to end with identifying the writer and the work again, you just mentioned them at the start. Add the year of the work at the first mention of the book itself.


 * History
 * Link Gallic, hagiographic, Tournus, Saint-Florent
 * Name the river being talked about even if it was mentioned a section earlier
 * Montsoreau is located on the borders of the territories of the Gallic tribes  Should this not be "was" as it is an ancient event?
 * during excavations of the castle what castle?
 * In Middle Ages section the variant names of the town should not be italicized, just like Montsoreau. Be consistent in it
 *  it is made mention of caves in which the monk Absalon grammatical error
 * Say AD/BC or don't say it, but stay consistent in one of the two
 *  during more than 150 years "for more"
 *  the History of Montsoreau  Why "History" and not "history" in multiple places ?
 * You must link terms only at first mention (once in lead and/or once in main body) unless a link in a particular place elsewhere would also be helpful.
 * his brother in law hyphens?
 *  (the mount Soreau) Again why is "mount" not "Mount" as before?
 *  and still today, it remains the only château of the Loire Valley  ->  and remains the only château of the Loire Valley 

Further action
I will comment on the rest later, but this seems to be a lot of work to handle in a GA review (despite the changes you have made over the past few days), where articles should mainly be polished before passing, and not repaired significantly. Also, I found you were not involved with the article before nominating it, as in editing or expanding it, which could be an issue in that the nominator might not be aware of whether the sources actually support the text in the article, they might not be able to tackle questions on the subject matter of the article like why and how a particular part was added. Moreover you appear to be a new editor, I am afraid you might not be able to work on making this article GA-worthy and this might be a long-drawn process for both you and me. Please think on these points, and consider withdrawing (as in, I would have to fail this) to work extensively on the article to meet the GA criteria on your own and have an official copyedit done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * the changes are ✅. I went also into History, Protection, Economy sections to make changes. All my very best, --Suavemarimagno (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You have still not responded to my concerns about you being an uninvolved editor though. Consequently, the problem of inline citations does not appear like it will be addressed properly. The copyediting and formatting changes to match GA standards need to be done more in depth and, in my opinion, should be done prior to a GA review. You need to address these points before any further discussion here. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 16:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my late answer I was short of time yesterday due to family business. I didn't expect so much work either. Although I was too fast on the article's nomination 8 months ago and I apologize for that, I am qualified to answer and have read all the sources during an edit-a-thon at the château de Montsoreau, and now thanks to you I am one of the main editors of the article ;). It is the first time I nominate an article then I will follow your words whether it is to withdraw or to go on. All my very best, --Suavemarimagno (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I highly appreciate your interest and efforts for this article, but I feel it is best to have this failed for now. The reason being, the article needs to follow a more encyclopedic style, have proper citations inline and undergo a copyedit. You are doing really well for a new editor, which is why I recommend you look through other GAs to get a feel how such articles should be written, sourced and formatted. I remember another article on a French commune that I reviewed – Sélestat. That can be a nice example for you to follow with regards to article structure and prose; also note the use of inline citations. You can look through my GA review comments there as well for more insight. So if you are fine with spending some time improving the article per these general tips, then let us not have a GA review running in the background. Do your best and renominate this article, I wish you all the very best! Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 17:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am really sorry it failed but I will undoubtedly finish the job. Could I upgrade the class and the importance of the article? --Suavemarimagno (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can see Content assessment for details. You will see some criteria like A class, GA and FA need consensus before the class can be upgraded to it. Importance really is not a big deal and is often not indicative of the real importance of the subject, normally the WikiProject members assign it. It may be changed but is not a big deal for you to worry about. Presently I will fail the article, but feel free to message me if you are ever in doubt or need guidance with improving articles. Consider talking to other editors involved in this subject area. I hope to see this article in the GA noms again soon :) Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 17:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will be back! :) Thank you very much Sainsf.--Suavemarimagno (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)