Wikipedia

Talk:Michel Vaillant

(Redirected from Talk:Michel Vaillant/Comments)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Learn more about this page
Former good article nomineeMichel Vaillant was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 9, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

B-Class to GA Class

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

All I would suggest needs doing to get this article to GA status is to expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] Good work, Hiding T 12:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a look at the lead sometime soon. :) BOZ (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Michel Vaillant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Well-written?

edit

There are many problems here. The article needs a thorough copy-edit for grammar. Some examples of types of problems are below.

Recurring problems

  • Hyphenation. "Non fictional", for example, should be hyphenated. "real-cars" should not.
  • Typos. E.g., "The pilote without a face"
  • Too many sentences start with "There is" or "there are". This is wordy. Example: "There are many commercial products based on the series" could be "Many commercial products are based on the series."
  • Problems with verb tense. E.g., "This game has ranked first in the auto racing video games in Benelux,[25] and reach top downloads on commercial websites" and "The series have fans throughout several countries".
  • Other problems. "The series is very popular among fans of automobile, for featuring real cars".

Other comments

  • "It has almost fans in France and Belgium, including Dutch-speaking Belgium, for Michel Vaillant albums have been translated very soon in Dutch" I'm not sure what this sentence means.
  • Why are the titles called "albums"?
  • Section "Some Breton in an album" is too short and is puzzlingly titled. "Albums in English" is also too short and should just be part of the "Publications" section.

Verifiable?

edit

Broad?

edit
  • Most citations are to MichelVaillant.com. What makes this a reliable source?
  • A search for Michel Vaillant on Google Books brings up a couple of sources you don't seem to have used. They might be useful in fleshing out your discussion.

Neutral?

edit

OK here.

Stable?

edit

OK here.

Images?

edit

Here's an example of an image with a good Fair Use Rationale: File:ND1tsotoc.JPG

On hold

edit

I'm putting the article on hold for a week. Ricardiana (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm checking in briefly with a question. Why is Boz the nominating editor when the article's revision history shows that s/he has never edited this article, even once? Ricardiana (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fram asked me to nominate, and so I did. :) BOZ (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I see that some cleanup work has been done; what remains? I'll see what I can do, though I am not in the least bit familiar with the subject. BOZ (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did some some grammar fixing on the first three sections - there was a bit of repetition that I removed and some data that I placed elsewhere. I also broke the text into smaller paragraphs. I could run through the whole article maybe by next weekend.

--Scott Free (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Scott! BOZ (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Verdict

edit

I am failing the article for now, for reasons detailed below. Feel free to request a GAR or re-nominate the article later.

I realize that people are working and plan to work on the article. However, the on hold process is only supposed to last a week, and a fail now does not prevent either re-assessment or re-nomination. In addition, the article has not been worked on by either the nominating editor, Boz, or Fram, the editor who asked Boz to nominate. Next time, issues can be resolved more quickly by having a nominating editor who is involved in the project and watches the page.

Reasons for fail:

  1. While the article has been cleaned up by Scott Free, it still needs a thorough copy-edit. In particular, I notice that problems with verb tense still remain - that's unacceptable for a Good Article.
  2. The images' FURs have been modified, but (with the exception of the one in the infobox) not enough. Specifically, they need to indicate how readers' understanding is enhanced.

Ricardiana (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Michael Valiant - Mach 2

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We just finished doing a pitstop and giving a wicked tune-up on MV - so the article is all revved up and raring to ride on the next leg of the GA Grand Prix...

--Scott Free (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michel Vaillant/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
The article Michel Vaillant deserves the B-class status for various reasons:
  1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. All the sources cited are reliable. There are no links to fan sites. All are from the official website, sites of renowned newspapers, websites specialised in the subject and renowned for their seriousness (for they are run by many experts).
  2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. The article complies with the model of a good article. It does not miss Wikipedia norms or standards. There is no lack of important information.
  3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. Each section has a decent content. Only appropriate information is given. All the section have a decent size.
  4. It is free from major grammatical errors. There are only minor grammatical errors. There are some orthographical errors, but they are minor and do not prevent an article from being a good article.
  5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. It has an infobox designed for comics series. There are four images, each has a Fair Use Rationnale and a license. There are no free images to illustrate correctly the subject. There is no need for diagrams in this kind of article: a diagram would not be appropriate.

That a fan site probably contains correct information is not enough, nor that it is accepted by the author or publisher (where do you get that idea, by the way? Who says that Graton in any way is endorsing Jimontheweb or Cartype?). You have sourced from blogs[1]=5276[2] (see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided point 11), linked to huge images from MV comics[3], which is linking to copyright violations(WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works. Other sources include a fan site. In general, you have very few reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Fram)Reply

The concern is that sometimes, reliable sources are very difficult to find, and this is the case for Michel Vaillant. In such cases, there are three arguments to support the presence of non-reliable sources in an article: 1) all fan sites have to ask for the authorization to display copyrighted images in their site: this is a manner for publishers and authors to control the creation of such websites. 2) if one deletes all the non-reliable sources, the article is likely to remain C-class for lack of references. 3) citing non-reliable sources is better than citing no sources at all. --Pah777 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Fram)Reply

1) They have to, but there is no evidence that they have actually done so. It is doubtful that sites that e.g. reproduce front covers at their original size are really endorsed. 2) and 3) If there are not enough good sources to make this article a B-class article, then, yes, it will remain a C-class article. So what? Perhaps we should make it straight away a Featured Article bacuse this is the best we can do? I am not blaming you or anyone for lack of trying, but the result is a C-class article, not a B-class article. 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 23:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michel Vaillant. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Michel Vaillant. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michel_Vaillant&oldid=1209037911"