Talk:Bovet Fleurier/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead should be a summary of the article with no original information. At the moment, it contains original information, such as the prevelence of female employees.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Reference 11 (Wristwatch Resources) deadlinks.
   • The E-bay portion of Ref #20 deadlinks.
   • I've added a couple of fact tags in places that need references.
   • References in langugages other than English (#30 for example) need to be marked with their language.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I have found several issues with references, so I am placing this review on hold for now. Due to these concerns, I have not yet reviewed prose, completeness or NPOV. I will review the article for these criteria when work on the issues already listed has progressed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for your help and interest. References fixed. Lead paragraph summarizes characteristics which make the watch unique. These descriptions are now detailed in the body of the article, so there is no new information. Ready for another look. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done some copyediting on the article, mainly grammar and other minor tweaks. Please take a look and make sure I haven't changed the meaning of anything. Other than that, the article looks good, so I am passing it to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

The article has POV problems. For example, the following statements are referenced by a POV source http://www.americanwatchguild.com/about.php which is a marketing source and not a third party reference:

• Bovet has a tradition of employing women artisans, which is rare for traditional watch making companies in Europe.
• Bovet watches include much artistic detail, and the company gives the artisans a great deal of independence in creating the elements of the watches, thus encouraging creativity
• Bovet watches are also unique for the company's tradition of employing women artisans, which is rare for traditional watch making companies in Europe.

• What makes this a neutral reliable, third-party source: http://www.robbreport.com/archived-issues/Article.aspx?article=14209

—Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Robb Report website appears to be the website of the a conglomeration of luxury magazines, which I would consider neutral, reliable and third-party. The American Watch Guild is an OK source for your second point, as it's not exactly a controversial detail - other sources are provided in the article to source the "much artistic detail" part, and giving the artisans independence and allowing creativity is not POV, in my opinion. I agree that a better source could be found for the women artisans part (which is one point repeated in two different spots, not two different points), as the source provided doesn't state that women watchmakers are rare - although this could probably fall under the category of common knowledge. Zoticogrillo, do you have a source that would be better for this statement? Dana boomer (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)