Talk:Trams in Rouen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Fixed one dab. [1]

Linkrot: No dead links found. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   He met numerous difficulties to which the CTR was no stranger, but on 17 July 1899, a new company to be called Traction Électrique E. Cauderay (a sister company of the better-known Companie Générale de Traction — CGT —) was decreed the concession over five routes: "...was decreed the concession..." is not good English, suggest something like "was granted the concession".

   In 1908 the CGT divested the second network to the Compagnie centrale de chemins de fer et de tramways because of administrative problems, a serious accident at Monumental on 6 November 1908[22] and a considerable deficit. Surely "divested itself of"?

   It also grew the network with later-running services, suggest developed, rather than grew.

   the CTR dutifully maintained normal service dutifully suggests a point of view.

   Denied maintenance until after World War I, ways and means were in a piteous state, while expenses escalated dramatically. Sugest simply "the lines" were ina bad state.

   A tough competitor had also arrived: the bus. POV

   Still, the CTR had record passenger numbers in 1928, with over 30 million journeys. Still? POV

   The tramways continued with no intent to surrender, and started large programmes of renovation and modernisation in the dozen or so years before World War II. "no intent to surrender" POV

   The fast-moving Rouen workshops "fast moving" POV

   the war had condemned the first mode of mass transport in Normandy. Condemned to what?

   ''the clientele of the funicular sunk inexorably inexorably seems to be POV

   If this latter was accepted without resistance by the departmental authorities, the service reduction was allowed with much red tape, surely would be rather than was?

   Who did the translation of oulier's report? Should the translation be credited?

   The decision to close the small line fell like an axe on 1 November 1908.[51] Thus ended the short history of the Trianon tramway, a victim of economics but above all two serious strategic errors:[50] wanting a service independent of the CTR's network, and putting its terminus out of town. POV statements

   'Epilogue': would Legacy be better. This whole section has a lot of POV statements.

   I suggest a thorough copy-edit by an univoled editor with special attention to POV statements and improving grammar and flow.

   I made a few copy edits to remedy obvious mistakes.[2]

   I feel that an infobox at top left would be useful to present a summary of the line, perhaps using Template:Infobox rail (NB: not a Ga requirement, but would improve the layout)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I assume Good Faith for all off line sources. References appear reliable. Sources should be listed in author alphabetical order.

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:

   As noted above there are a number of POV statements

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):

   Correctly tagged, licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for above concerns to be addressed. The copy-edit is most important. This may take time, so I won't fail as long as progress is being made. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

   Please note: "under weigh" is NOT correct, I am aware of the usage of this for shipping, but this is an historic use, not common nowadays, see [3], [4], [5] –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

   I think my points have been sufficiently addressed to justify good artcile status. Congratulations and thanks for your hard work. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for your help and time reviewing it. Si Trew (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made copy edits and tried to remove the creeping POV statements (these were translated as literally as possible from the French, but I accept they are not to English WP standards). I have asked User:Mjroots to review for copy edit since I think he is the most knowledgeable and impartial person to do this, he also is the one who suggested I take it to GAN. I hope this is not considered WP:CANVASS, I am new to this but he would seem the best to give an impartial copy edit if he is willing. Si Trew (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I have watchlisted this, will take another look in a week or so. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll give the article a copyedit in the next few days. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)