Talk:Faidherbe Bridge

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Faidherbe Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Has no inline citations from sections 1 to 4. Would add these and any other obvious gaps and then renominate. Tom (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review 2

This review is transcluded from Talk:Faidherbe Bridge/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Writing needs work. Numerous MoS breaches, as well. First, the lead is way too long. Also, numbers under 10 need to be spelled out. References need to be formatted properly, as well.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   This is where the real problem is. The entire body of the article is unreferenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article's fairly short. any more information that could be included?

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:

This article needs a lot of work before it can be listed as a GA. Because of the issues mentioned above, I failed the article. It can be renominated once these issues are addressed. Cheers. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Faidherbe Bridge/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are a number of shortcomings regarding the MOS. I would recommend that the author(s) read the Manual of Style to keep up to date with the newest proceedings. For instance, years and dates are never to be wikilinked. All metric values must be converted to old units using the {{convert}} template. There are a number of boldface occurrences throughout the article—only the first instance of the name, supplemented by synonyms, should be bold. Do not just link to francs, but instead link to French franc, if that is the currency used at the time, and if applicable, use the ISO currency code. There is no need to repeat the link to franc after the first occurance. Companies, committees etc. are not to be in italics. Avoid linking to the same article multiple times, and to common, irrelevant words. Also remember to check if links are to disambiguation pages. There is no need to link to common measureing units like m (by the way, m links to the letter, not to meter). It would be nice if you could add the coordinates (see {{coord}}). Section headings should never include redundant inclusion of the article topic, for instance use "Opening" instead of "Opening of the bridge".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   My main concern is that the article is virtually unreferenced. Several sections have no refs, and the inline citiations seem to placed wrongly. For instance, "The rehabilitaion works[9]..." should have the reference at the end of the sentence. All references should use the {{cite}} template. Instead of repeating the same references again, use the syntax <ref name="pickaname">{{cite ... }}</ref>, and recall the same reference with <ref name="pickaname" />. Choose a different name (instead of pickaname) for each reference that is repeated. I presume you have used the bibliography, in which case inline citiations are also needed. For instance, use <ref>Thilmans, 2006: 40–44</ref> to create notes that specify which book is used where, and what pages are referenced. The books should be cited within the {{cite book}} template under bibliography. If an entire paragraph is cited from the same source, one ref at the end is sufficient.

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):

   File:Faidherbestamp.jpg does not have a valid fair use rationale. As a stamp under fair use, it can only be used in an article about the stamp itself, not about the topic that the stamp depicts. Therefore, I have removed the image. The rest of the images are okay.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold. If all the matters are seen to, the article should be ready for GA. Good work so far, and good luck improving it further. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, that was all the main body seen to. I am sorry, but there was one thing I forgot to mention during the review; the lead is a bit short. The problem is not so much the length, as that the lead is supposed to summarize, not introduce the topic. As a rule of thumb, the lead should, in addition to a short introduction (1–2 sentences) include at least the main point form each section. At present it provides a background of the bridge. Again, sorry for missing this the first time. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be it all done. Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Faidherbe Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081202082029/http://www.setra.equipement.gouv.fr/RA/Expertise-du-pont-Faidherbe-a.html to http://www.setra.equipement.gouv.fr/RA/Expertise-du-pont-Faidherbe-a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Faidherbe Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930204452/http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/actualites/deplacements_a_l_etranger/2005/fevrier/fiches/senegal/l_ile_saint-louis-le_pont_faidherbe.27707.html to http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/actualites/deplacements_a_l_etranger/2005/fevrier/fiches/senegal/l_ile_saint-louis-le_pont_faidherbe.27707.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201094201/http://recherches-africaines.net:80/document.php?id=344 to http://www.recherches-africaines.net/document.php?id=344

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)