Talk:Éric Borel/GA1

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 shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The "Course of events" section could be better written as prose, rather than sectioning it by time. Rather than having the note at the top, integrate the information about the time zone into the first time that you give (i.e. "At 6 pm Central European time) and that will let readers know what time zone the article is working in without having a big, ugly "Note" at the top. Also, the prose itself could be better. For example, the beginning of the section could be better put " On September 23rd, 1995, at 6 pm Central European Time, Borel killed his stepfather in the kitchen of their family home." The article needs more prose, less bolded dates and times and choppy paragraphs.
   • Eric Borel should be referred to as "Borel" throughout the article, not "Eric". WP:MOS - Biographies says that "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only..."
   • In the 8:30 pm section, you say "Presumably he spent the night between vines." Like, grape vines? Please make this more clear.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • What makes Ref #3 (the Geocities link) reliable? I don't read French, but self-published Geocities pages are not generally considered reliable.
   • Web references need to include the publisher and an access date. The publisher is generally not formatted in the link with the title, but is on it's own. The two Le Monde refs I'm assuming are newspaper or journal refs - they need to be similarly formatted with article titles and authors if available.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • I am concerned about the coverage of this article. It really says nothing about the aftermath of the event, except to list victims who died afterwards. What was the media coverage like? Was it heavily covered outside of France? What was the reaction of the country? The world? Were there memorial funds or scholarships set up in the names of the victims? What did the survivors themselves have to say about the event? These are some of the questions that could probably be answered by looking for a broader array of sources and creating some sort of an "Aftermath" section.

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 some serious concerns about the prose, MOS, referencing and completeness of this article. For now, I am placing the article on hold to allow improvements to be made. Because of the concerns listed above, I have not yet completed a full review of the prose of this article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   Although the article is looking better, there are still many issues to be addressed, even after over a week on hold. Nothing has been done about the unreliable references and reference formatting, or about the aftermath information that was requested. Also, there is one place that needs a reference (I have added a fact tag) and the lead could stand to be expanded by a few sentences. Due to the still outstanding issues, and the lack of any comment by the nominator on the review page, I am going to fail this article's GA nomination. After the issues listed above have been resolved, please feel free to renominate the article at GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)