Wikipedia:Peer review/Cubzac-les-Ponts/archive1

Cubzac-les-Ponts
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…


 * I am seeking a comprehensive review of every aspect of the article, as am aiming for Good Article, then Featured Article status.
 * Ideally, need someone to help me put together a 'job-list' for the article.

Thanks, Randomblue (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is probably not an exhaustive list of "things to do", but I think it covers the main areas for attention if the article aspires to FA status:-
 * The lead needs to be expanded into a full summary of the whole article
 * I've expanded the lead. Will expand even more soon.
 * Infobox image: I'm not sure that a 100-year-old photograph is the best image with which to head the article. If it is, the caption needs to be more informative.
 * The image has been removed. I've put an image of the three bridges.
 * The article is badly cluttered with images and tables. Many of the images are indeed striking, but they tend to overwhelm the text. The panoramic images would be better placed in a gallery at the end of the article.
 * I hope this has been addressed.
 * There are several cases where text is squeezed between images and/or boxed tables. This should be avoided by careful placement. Also, ask yourself whether every image is a necessity.
 * I've removed some images and tables.
 * What is the pupose of the rectangular box immediately after the Geography and climate section?
 * Removed.
 * "Etymology" is misspelt. A major section should have more than a single brief sentence in it; personally I don't think this topic is worth a section on its own.
 * Done.
 * The list of mayors should be at the end of the article.
 * Done, together with evolution of population size.
 * Why is a table of populations shown in the Geography and climate section?
 * Removed.
 * What is the purpose of the unheaded and uncaptiond table to the right of the suspension bridge section, which gives an historic list of toll fees?
 * For interrest, removed.
 * There are "citation needed" tags throughout the text. There could be many more - there are no citations at all after the Saint-Julien church section.
 * I'm working on this, namely gathering more sources and reading them.
 * References need sorting out. For example:-
 * Many of the listed books are not cited, so it is not apparent how they have been used as sources.
 * Publisher information is generally missing.
 * It should be noted that all the sources are French language.
 * There are formatting issues with the on-line citations.
 * Wikimapia is not a reliable encyclopedic source.
 * I hope all the points above are now more or less sorted. I think I've dealt with the formatting issues, but I'm not sure.
 * The licensing of the older images is wrong. In the case of File:Cubzac.jpg, you cannot claim PD on the grounds of "author's life plus 70 years if you don't know who the author is. You cannot assume that the photographer who took this picture in 1907 must have died before 1940. You need to establish the publication history of this image to establish that it is PD in the United States. For File:Pont suspendu de Cubzac-les-Ponts.jpg, it seems that the licence should be on PD-art rather than PD-old or, if you can date the magazine given as the source, on publication prior to 1923.
 * I removed File:Cubzac.jpg. For File:Pont suspendu de Cubzac-les-Ponts.jpg I have changed PD-old to PD-art. What is PD-art?
 * I have not gone through the text in detail, but in places there are odd choices of words. For example, "Many stone quarries have been slashed in Cubzac..." I have never heard "slashed" used in that context. Quarries are excavated or blasted; they are not "slashed". The article will need a thorough copyedit.
 * For sure the article needs a lot of copyediting. I haven't finished putting all the information yet, so I'm slightly postponing the copyedit. Having said that, the section "Eiffel bridge" has most of the information in, so is ready for a copyedit.
 * Finally, the article's structure does not seem to follow any logical plan. Sections seem to have been added as you have thought of them. Have you looked at "town" articles that have achieved GA or FA status? They may give some further ideas as to a better structure for this article.
 * Yes, I've looked around. I've interchanged the sections History (which needs a lot of expansion) and Geography. I have also merged "Ancient crossing methods" in History. Finally, I have shrinked the table of contents. Can you think of some other obvious changes to make?

You have collected some interesting and valid information here, and some vivid pictures. But as the above list suggests, if the article is to be a credible candidate at GA or FA, it needs a great deal of further work. I hope that you will feel it worthwhile to make the attempt. I am not able to watch all my peer reviews, so if you have questions about this review, or want me to take another look, please call my talkpage.
 * Thank you for your time. This was very helpful and I hope to put the article through GAC soon. Randomblue (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

The article is looking distinctly better after the reorganisation and tidying exercises so far. There is still work to be done on referencing, with several citation tags still in place, and unreferenced sections towards the end. The list of citations should be placed before, not after, the lists of sources, per MOS. The "Geography and climate" section is still inappropriately named - nothing about the climate. The article could do with more information about the local economy, employment etc. Is this based on agriculture, vineyards, tourism? Is there any local industry? These are all areas to be worked on. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)