Talk:Renault Agriculture/GA1

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

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Please remove the following unused parameters, unless any significant and citable information can be found for them:


 * "romanized name"
 * "former name"
 * "traded as"
 * "fate"
 * "predecessor"
 * "area served"
 * "key people"
 * "products"
 * "production"
 * "services"
 * "revenue"
 * "operating income"


 * "net income"
 * "aum"
 * "assets"
 * "equity"
 * "owner"
 * "num employees"
 * "divisions"
 * "subsid"
 * "homepage"
 * "footnotes"
 * "intl"

Lead

 * Please provide a link to the article of "Renault" in its first mention in the lead
 * The infobox says the company dissolved in 2008, but here it says "between 2003 and 2008"; which one is it?

Paragraph 1

 * Please provide a link to the article of "Renault" in its first mention in the body
 * "The most outstanding differences of the new tractor..." --> "The most distinguishable differences of the new tractor..." ("Outstanding" sounds a bit too opinionated for me; does this sound better to you?)
 * Insert a comma after "In 1926" please

Paragraph 2

 * Insert a comma after "In 1920" please
 * Since the previous paragraph ended in the year 1938, why does this one begin in 1920?"
 * Insert a comma after "Shortly after" please
 * No source for "By the next decade, the tractor division of Renault began a series of partnerships with other manufacturers."; please add one

Paragraph 3

 * "had a partnership agreement by which the first received John Deere engines manufactured at the Saran factory..." --> "had a partnership agreement by which the former received John Deere engines manufactured at the Saran factory..."
 * Rest is really good! Great work!

End of GA Review:
Definitely one of my shortest GA reviews. Great work, and I look forward to reviewing more of your articles in the future. I will be placing the article on hold for seven days to allow for any changes to be made to the article. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact me or @PING me and I will respond swiftly. Thanks! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC).

Comments
Hi, I decided to do a point-by-point feedback to your review, as there's various things you may wish to comment:


 * Infobox
 * Lead
 * I added "Renault Agriculture was dissolved in 2008 and its facilities became part of Claas' tractor division". Is it clearer that way?
 * Paragraph 1
 * Yes, I think it's better, changed.
 * Paragraph 2
 * I decided to include all the things related to the Billancourt production in the first paragraph and the things related to the Le Mans production from the second paragraph onwards. Do you think a more chronological approach would be better?
 * As a side note, I added links to Boulogne-Billancourt (the place where the Renault's Billancourt factory was located) an extra link to Le Mans and a link to Flins Renault Factory. That was maybe an underlinking that made things harder for casual readers.
 * I think there's no source to directly back that up, so I removed it. I added it to give more "cohesion" to the following sentences, as they mostly cover unrelated partnerships. However, I agree it looks like (unintended) original synthesis.
 * Paragraph 3
 * I decided to include all the things related to the Billancourt production in the first paragraph and the things related to the Le Mans production from the second paragraph onwards. Do you think a more chronological approach would be better?
 * As a side note, I added links to Boulogne-Billancourt (the place where the Renault's Billancourt factory was located) an extra link to Le Mans and a link to Flins Renault Factory. That was maybe an underlinking that made things harder for casual readers.
 * I think there's no source to directly back that up, so I removed it. I added it to give more "cohesion" to the following sentences, as they mostly cover unrelated partnerships. However, I agree it looks like (unintended) original synthesis.
 * Paragraph 3
 * I think there's no source to directly back that up, so I removed it. I added it to give more "cohesion" to the following sentences, as they mostly cover unrelated partnerships. However, I agree it looks like (unintended) original synthesis.
 * Paragraph 3

Well, that's it for now. Feel free to let me know any concern you have about the changes I made. Urbanoc (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating what you did for each point of mine; that was very much appreciated! It all checks out and thanks for your time! Passing now! :) Carbrera (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC).