Talk:Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hi I'll be reviewing this article to see if it meets the Good Article Criteria. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 12:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article is reasonably well written, though it could do with some modifications

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Clear, fluent text. No unneeded trivia

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   In Death and Burial it says, "Mademoiselle fell ill on 15 March 1693 with what appears to have been stoppage of the bladder or some related disease" what this related disease is believed to be should be included. The Lead should be a brief summary of the subject's life and include their achievements other things worth mentioning, eg. cause of death, marriages etc.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   1 citation per paragraph.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Article provides sufficient information.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No recent edit-wars, nominator and a few others have done significant work on the article and its maintenance.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Apart from the Lead requiring development per WP:LEAD and possible theories as to her cause of death, the article meets all other aspects of the criterion listed without fail, I believe that this merits the article to be listed as a GA this time around.

English not being my mother tongue, I may be way off in my judgment, but I find it strange that this article as is passed the GA test. Practically every sentence has to be edited for either bad grammar or style, which the reviewer seems to have overlooked. How can a reviewer let this pass without flinching?:

• Another point of rank was her status as a Granddaughter of France; As a male line descendant of the late king Henry IV of France, she held the prestigious style of petite-fille de France. Though useless to the succession and the childless Louis XIII and his consort Queen Anne, she was the most important child at the French court. She was the first of her generation, which was an unusual status. Louis XIII thus bestowed the new rank of granddaughter of France on his only niece.[4]

Or:

• Le Vau redid the exterior's at a cost of 200,000 Livres which were lost in a fire in 1752

leaves the reader under the impression that 200,000 Livres were lost in that fire. Since there was no paper money at the time - the livres being gold pieces - the reader can easily imagine the gold melted in the fire.

Since yesterday, another editor & myself have been working on the article one section after another. After nearly five hours spent on it, we have not gone beyond the Fronde, i.e. not even half of the article.

This is not meant to make it rain on anyone's parade, but I am questioning the judgment of the reviewer who, while ignoring bad spelling, grammar & style obvious to non Anglo-born natives, passed the article to GA status.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That was my fault, I shall not be so unobservant of these issues next time, if you would like you may participate in the Good Article Reassessment here, the prose was definitely something I overlooked and it seems there is an abundance of issues in relation to the prose. I've fixed a majority of the issues listed at the GAR but if you wish you may help there. Thanks. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne?

How can you overlook "the prose" when reading a text? --Frania W. (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)