Talk:Bastille/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   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:

Comments

This is a very detailed and informative article. It is written in clear, helpful and pleasant prose which engages the attention and carries one along. I suspect that little work will be needed to get this to meet GA criteria. I think the main time taken will be in background reading to ensure that the coverage is appropriate (all main points covered, and balanced, etc). Some quibbles regarding the lead - I feel that a brief mention of the storming of the Bastille could be made in the first paragraph, as this is a significant part of the Bastille's notability for the general reader; some mention of its location in Place de la Bastille, and that there are some remains in the nearby Boulevard Henri IV; the lead has five paragraphs, and four is preferred; there are some slight wording quibbles: "The seven remaining prisoners..." they hadn't previously been specifically mentioned, so this might be better as "Seven remaining prisoners...", though I am uncertain about the word "remaining"; "In the following years..." - as the previous dates mentioned are a sentence and a half back in a different paragraph this phrase catches a bit. Perhaps - "In its lifetime..."? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• This is an impressive article. I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Still got some background reading and sources to check. Also to be considered is the depth of material. Is it too detailed in places? I don't think so - I think it is well judged as being informative with being excessive, though it's something I'm still thinking about. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• There isn't a section devoted to a description of the design and layout of the castle. There is information present, though it is scattered. I find no mention at all of the moat. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see "ditch" in the first paragraph of the main body. I did a search for "moat". Was it a ditch or moat? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• It could be made clearer for the general reader that the Bastille was originally built as a gate. The text makes it sound as though it was originally intended as a castle: "Prior to the building of the Bastille, the main royal castle in Paris was the Louvre..." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Is bastille a corruption of bastide? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• The description here in Encyclopædia Metropolitana I found quite useful - it clearly outlines the development of the Bastille from gate to fortress and explains the road was later diverted to the right (north). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Is the caption on File:Bastille reconstruction 1420.jpg accurate? It says the Seine is to the left, when the location would suggest it is in the background. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Pass

This is an excellent article, well written, very informative and well supported by adequate sources. It comfortably meets GA criteria. There are areas of discussion regarding how better to present and weight information, but that would be for ongoing development, and I indicate a few areas above where discussion may start. I feel the article would benefit from some clarity regarding the main points that a general reader would be looking for. The article as it was before the recent, admirable expansion by Hchc2009, was quite pitiful, however it does have some value in indicating quite simply and clearly those points that a general reader would wish to know. There is always the sense that each Wikipedia article is in fact two articles - the "popular" article for the general reader who wishes to know the basic, important facts in a clear, simple and memorable manner, and the more detailed and expansive article for the reader who wishes to be informed more about a specific aspect of the topic (a particular period of history (the revolution), or usage (as a prison), or origin, or architecture and layout), or has time and inclination to wish to learn more overall. The "popular" article is the lead section, and the more detailed article is the main body. If I have an argument with this article it would be that the popular aspect needs attention. But overall I am impressed with the quality of the work, and have much respect and admiration for Hchc2009, and gratitude for the work done here and on other castle articles. The Foundation have been concerned recently regarding the decline in the amount of editors Wikipedia is attracting and retaining; however, experienced editors have been pointing out that it is not quantity we need, but quality, and while we can attract and retain writers of the standard of Hchc2009 then Wikipedia will improve. It's worth noting that Hchc2009 only joined us a little over two years ago and has been a massive asset since. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)