Talk:Villa La Vigie, Roquebrune-Cap-Martin
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Ganesha811 in topic GA Review
![]() | Villa La Vigie, Roquebrune-Cap-Martin was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 17, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in France may be able to help! |
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Villa La Vigie, Roquebrune-Cap-Martin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @No Swan So Fine - this is an interesting article! Before we get to the prose review, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the comments and questions below, as prose may shift or be added during this first part of the review. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much @Ganesha811 for such a thorough review - I've replied below. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments and changes, and just read through the article again. Unfortunately, I think there is a fundamental issue linking the problems - notability. GA is not a notability review, and I won't be nominating this for deletion, because I think it's a marginal case. But the lack of in-depth coverage of the villa in independent, secondary sources means that this content, in my opinion, would be better off as a subsection of Lagerfeld's page, a sentence on the SBM page, and maybe a couple mentions elsewhere. As a standalone article, it feels thin and I think that explains our difficulty with the comprehensive coverage and detail. Pless should be removed, but with that gone (and even with it included), there's just very little available information on the villa between 1902 and 1986. I think it might be difficult to reach GA status without finding new sources that cover that period. Let me know what you think - I hope we can get the article to GA together, but wanted to be forthright about this obstacle. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @No Swan So Fine, what are your thoughts on this? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ganesha811. I have thought deeply about your comment for the last two days. I do still think the house is notable enough for a stand alone article, but I would be pleased to see it withdrawn from the GA process. Thank you so much for your suggested improvements. I do feel there will be better archival sources in French newspapers, which unfortunately I can neither access nor interpret. Our English article is already more comprehensive than the corresponding page on French Wikipedia though. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Alright! I'm sorry we couldn't get it there this time, but if you ever get access to better sources, feel free to renominate and ping me and I'll come take a look again! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ganesha811. I have thought deeply about your comment for the last two days. I do still think the house is notable enough for a stand alone article, but I would be pleased to see it withdrawn from the GA process. Thank you so much for your suggested improvements. I do feel there will be better archival sources in French newspapers, which unfortunately I can neither access nor interpret. Our English article is already more comprehensive than the corresponding page on French Wikipedia though. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @No Swan So Fine, what are your thoughts on this? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments and changes, and just read through the article again. Unfortunately, I think there is a fundamental issue linking the problems - notability. GA is not a notability review, and I won't be nominating this for deletion, because I think it's a marginal case. But the lack of in-depth coverage of the villa in independent, secondary sources means that this content, in my opinion, would be better off as a subsection of Lagerfeld's page, a sentence on the SBM page, and maybe a couple mentions elsewhere. As a standalone article, it feels thin and I think that explains our difficulty with the comprehensive coverage and detail. Pless should be removed, but with that gone (and even with it included), there's just very little available information on the villa between 1902 and 1986. I think it might be difficult to reach GA status without finding new sources that cover that period. Let me know what you think - I hope we can get the article to GA together, but wanted to be forthright about this obstacle. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much @Ganesha811 for such a thorough review - I've replied below. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.