Talk:Pont du Gard/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 13:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'll review this article.

note - there are three dead links caught by the link checker - I checked them and they are dead.

MathewTownsend (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

review

• I'm a little confused by the headings. In the lede, there doesn't seem to be a mention of the "Nîmes aqueduct" but under "Description" the first heading is "The Nîmes aqueduct" and the first sentence starts: "The Nîmes aqueduct originally carried water". I see that you're making a distinction between the aqueduct and the Pont du Gard. Perhaps under "Description" there can be a preliminary explanation of the distinction, especially since the name of the article is Pont du Gard. But the Pont du Gard heading is much farther down in the article.

• Erm, the second sentence in the lede says that the PdG is "part of the 50 km-long Nîmes aqueduct"... Prioryman (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• "the Garrigue hills - shouldn't this be in lower case? "garrigue" as its a type of hill.

• Actually garrigue is a kind of habitat, rather like chaparral or maquis. But the hills outside Nimes are specifically known as the Garrigues de Nîmes. I see someone has reworded the passage to make the point clearer. Prioryman (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the source given (Bromwich, James (2006)) doesn't discuss the Garrigue hills, so I added a tag to point that out.

• I'll have to check this, I don't have Bromwich to hand right now, but if I remember rightly the hills are mentioned but not named - I added the name from the map I had of the area. Prioryman (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Nonetheless it seems to have continued to supply water to Nimes until as late as the 9th century." - "seems" is not encyclopedic wording. Perhaps something like "According to [source], it continued to supply water ... "?

• I needed to check this, because I'd heard that there had been more recent research done on the topic. That turns out to be the case and I've reworded this bit to add the latest research. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• "The Pont du Gard's design represents a fairly early stage in the development of Roman aqueducts. Its designer's technique of stacking arches on top of each other is clumsy and expensive, as it necessitates the use of a very large amount of stone." This doesn't seem to be supported by the source given at the end of the paragraph (Hill, Donald Routledge (1996)) - also "fairly early" is vague.

• I've reworded this. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• will put on hold until nominator weighs in. Having trouble verifying info as many citations are either dead links, or don't have enough information to track down.

• Also, the quotes from the Literary visitors should all be punctuated the same way. The first on can be the model: "Jean-Jacques Rousseau was overwhelmed when he first visited it in 1738:" So a colon should be used for each of the following quotes. Also, some of the quotes don't start with a capital letter. e.g. "one is struck dumb with astonishment;" If this quote started in the middle of a sentence, then use "[O]ne is struck dumb" etc.

OK, done. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• "It was added to UNESCO's list of World Heritage Sites in 1985." This is mentioned in the lede but isn't mentioned in the article where it should be expanded upon. What were the features that enabled it to be added the the list?

• Actually it was already in the article in the "Tourism" section, but I've moved the bit on UNESCO to the preceding section and added the criteria on which it was listed. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just a few fixes and this can become a good article.

MathewTownsend (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   • per lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. ... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic ...". Because the organization of the article and the way the lead is written, it doesn't serve as a "concise overview".

   the first section heading is "The Nîmes aqueduct" which is confusing because it's barely mentioned in the lede, yet this section is quite long. The second section heading is "The Pont du Gard" (the name of the article)

   • Per section headings, the article's name should not be repeated in the section heading.
   • Per words to watch: use of vague wording e.g. "fairly well understood", "a fairly early stage in the development of Roman aqueducts", "it seems to have continued to supply water".

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   there is one citation that is a dead link

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

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:

   The GA1 was opened on July 12. This is close to a good article, but no work on it has been done since July 16 and all the review points have not been addressed. With a few fixes, the article can be renominated.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)