Talk:Paris/GA3

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

Reviewer: Geojournal (talk · contribs) 21:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I intend to review this article as soon as possible.  Geo ''' talk 21:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead and Tools (First Impression)
·Already having thoroughly reviewed the lead, I have found a (relatively) small amount of mistakes. The second sentence reads "...and a population in 2013 of 2,229,621 within its administrative limits." Clearly, this should be reworded to "...and a population of 2,229,621 in 2013 within its administrative limits." to improve the prose. Other than this, the lead is decent for good article qualification. It's worth mentioning though, that using Checklinks, I discovered the article to have 13 dead links, an OK number for an article this size. I have tagged them for deletion (and hopefully replacement).  Geo ''' talk 22:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall (Final Thoughts)
After having read the article, I've reached a few conclusions. First, I would say that while this article may seem large at first glance, the topic is a comprehensive one that requires this level of detail. Considering that, the article does not go into any unnecessary detail and the prose is excellent for a GA. It is verifiable, containing no original research or copyright issues. Citations are sufficient but it is crucial to note that there are 4 tags and 13 dead links (tagged as mentioned). Likely due to the large amounts of varied editing this article receives, it remains neutral at all times even in areas one wouldn't expect (Media and International Relations, for example). It is stable (especially with the pending changes protection, though semi-protection for such an article might be more fitting in the future) and the images offer a cohesive comparison with the textual information.

However, before promoting this article to GA status, I would strongly recommend the citation needed tags and 13 dead links, especially, be replaced. I will try to do so myself but any help would be much appreciated. Looking hopeful so far... -- Geo ''' talk 20:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I would suggest checking the article against the issues raised at talk:Paris/GA2 which led to its delisting from GA previously. Nthep (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've taken care of the dead links and missing citations.  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 21:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying me of those issues, Nthep! I have checked it out and determined that even considering the lengthy subject, this lead is way overdone. The rest of the issues, as far as I can see, have been resolved. I will continue to shorten the lead after which point I'd deem the article a GA.  Geo ''' talk 22:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've resolved issues with the lead, eliminating and partially replacing redundant information, annexing it elsewhere in the article as needed. I am ready to promote the article and will do so if no further objections are received in a timely manner. Thank you for your help!  Geo ''' talk 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing your (objective) view about the parts of the article that go into 'excessive detail', if you don't mind... thanks for all!  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 07:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)