From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Paris has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge[edit]

Still bickering after all this time haha. France badly needs contributors for this, so help fly the flag for France and improve/create articles on France to go towards it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Look at the timeline of this article... almost dead silence, rather. But it's all the bickering that keeps contributors away... ; ) THEPROMENADER   08:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
More seriously, France-knowledgeable English-wikipedia contributors are lacking (a situation that was exploited before), so perhaps it might be a good idea to get some translation from French wikipedia going. I'll see what I can drum up. THEPROMENADER   08:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Louvre = most visited, or second-most visited attraction in the world?[edit]

An anon changed the 'second-most' in the lede phrase to 'the most' without providing a reference, but does this claim have one? THEPROMENADER   12:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Promenader. This is a tricky question. The article List of most visited art museums puts the the Palace Museum in Beijing, which is both an art and history museum, as the most visited art museum in the world, way above the Louvre. But if it's limited to museums that are exclusively art museums, then the Louvre would be ahead. We can leave the Louvre in number one, but note that the Beijng Museum has a higher attendance. What do you think? SiefkinDR (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
No need to mention the Beijng Museum since it is not exclusively an art museum. Not sure I trust their statistics either. Coldcreation (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I would find a few more sources, too... that list is from a single source (which is normally verboten on Wiki)? I'll have a look at what the Paris Tourism board says (but their numbers... whatever), too. THEPROMENADER   14:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Got a few: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]... I would consider a preponderance of several sources (most sources cite the Louvre as...). THEPROMENADER   14:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
PS: Happy New Year, guys, hope you are well ; ) THEPROMENADER   14:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for those sources, and happy new year to you to, from The City of Light... Coldcreation (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Then we'll let the Louvre keep its well-deserved title. Bonne Annee, Paris team!SiefkinDR (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paris/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Geojournal (talk · contribs) 21:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I intend to review this article as soon as possible. Geo talk 21:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead and Tools (First Impression)[edit]

·Already having thoroughly reviewed the lead, I have found a (relatively) small amount of mistakes. The second sentence reads "...and a population in 2013 of 2,229,621 within its administrative limits." Clearly, this should be reworded to "...and a population of 2,229,621 in 2013 within its administrative limits." to improve the prose. Other than this, the lead is decent for good article qualification. It's worth mentioning though, that using Checklinks, I discovered the article to have 13 dead links, an OK number for an article this size. I have tagged them for deletion (and hopefully replacement). Geo talk 22:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall (Final Thoughts)[edit]

After having read the article, I've reached a few conclusions. First, I would say that while this article may seem large at first glance, the topic is a comprehensive one that requires this level of detail. Considering that, the article does not go into any unnecessary detail and the prose is excellent for a GA. It is verifiable, containing no original research or copyright issues. Citations are sufficient but it is crucial to note that there are 4 [citation needed] tags and 13 dead links (tagged as mentioned). Likely due to the large amounts of varied editing this article receives, it remains neutral at all times even in areas one wouldn't expect (Media and International Relations, for example). It is stable (especially with the pending changes protection, though semi-protection for such an article might be more fitting in the future) and the images offer a cohesive comparison with the textual information.

However, before promoting this article to GA status, I would strongly recommend the citation needed tags and 13 dead links, especially, be replaced. I will try to do so myself but any help would be much appreciated. Looking hopeful so far... --Geo talk 20:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment I would suggest checking the article against the issues raised at talk:Paris/GA2 which led to its delisting from GA previously. Nthep (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment I've taken care of the dead links and missing citations. THEPROMENADER   21:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me of those issues, Nthep! I have checked it out and determined that even considering the lengthy subject, this lead is way overdone. The rest of the issues, as far as I can see, have been resolved. I will continue to shorten the lead after which point I'd deem the article a GA. Geo talk 22:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've resolved issues with the lead, eliminating and partially replacing redundant information, annexing it elsewhere in the article as needed. I am ready to promote the article and will do so if no further objections are received in a timely manner. Thank you for your help! Geo talk 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
The article is well written after verification due to large numbers of varied edits from editors.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Required cleanup and improvements to the lead but after that was otherwise fully compliant.
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.
Yes, this page meets the layout standards. 
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
Contained 13 dead links and 4 {citation needed} tags but were resolved in a timely fashion and so passes the criteria.
2c. it contains no original research.
As far as is discernible, the page doesn't have any original research. 
2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
After checking duplication tools and giving a good read out with manual checks, it's safe to say there are no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
This article does address main aspects of its topic (Like history, geography, economy and so on), occasionally going into excessive detail but that is very minimal.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
This article covers quite a broad topic, but it does not go into unnecessary detail considering the variety and depth on the topic provided.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
This article, due to its publicity, rarely had and currently does not have POV or neutrality issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
This article had seen a number of conflicts in the past, but they were resolved and action for page protection has been taken which seems to be efficient in preventing instability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
Images are cohesive and there are no problems therewith.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
All the pictures are relevant and have captions that add to their value.
7. Overall assessment.
 This article did suffer from some issues in the past, such as those in categories 1b, 2b, and 5, (mentioned in previous failed nominations) especially but they have all been resolved in a timely manner resulting in my promotion of this article to GA.

I would be interested in hearing your (objective) view about the parts of the article that go into 'excessive detail', if you don't mind... thanks for all! THEPROMENADER   07:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

FA status - Improvements?[edit]

Something tells me that, at this point, this is not a great hurdle to breach: I'm game, if anyone else is. It would help to have an objective assessment of what could be improved, though. THEPROMENADER   07:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I've asked for the objective input of a few copyeditors, for starters - thanks to any who can help. THEPROMENADER   08:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi, I was pinged by User:ThePromenader. Please note that I not a FA/GA copy editor, I do not pretend that I am familiar with all of their criteria. Having said that, I do possess a dollop of common sense, so here are a few suggestions should you be interested. I've only looked at the lede and the history section so far, I might look at the rest of the article later (no promises). One general comment, it seems very

Lede. The second paragraph is quite hard to follow. First of all we encounter the term 'Paris unité urbaine', then 'aire urbaine de Paris', both of which are described as a measure of urban area (which would imply that they are standard and transferable), but are then used to refer to a specific area itself in Paris. I'm assuming that 'urban area' is the standard measure used for statistical purposes, and then the whole term defines the relevant area in Paris, but in any event, I had to re-read it several times. This is quite a lot of technical detail for the lede, I'd suggest simplifying it somewhat.

I'm not sure adding the dates of the monuments in the lede is required, it's already quite large.

Origins. Maybe mention who beheaded St Denis or at least what group did. This fact is a little isolated at the moment.

Middle Ages "The merchants became a powerful force" in what? Politically, economically, socially?.

"Two and half years later, on 1 December 1420, Henry V of England made his solemn entrance into the French capital". What is the context of this? Why was it solemn? Maybe try "Two and half years later, on 1 December 1420, Henry V of England entered Paris and it remained occupied by the English and their Burgundian allies until 1436." If there was a conflict when they arrived, entered would not be appropriate.

"The city had been neglected for decades; by the time of his assassination in 1610, Henry IV had rebuilt the Pont Neuf, the first Paris bridge with sidewalks and not lined with buildings, linked the Louvre to the Tuileries Palace, and created the first Paris residential square, the Place Royale, now Place des Vosges." What are we trying to say? Is the point that it was neglected, even though Henry had done this work? Was the Pont Neuf the first bridge with sidewalks before or after the rebuilding? Or are we saying that what he did was tantamount to neglect? In any case, the sentence is very fragmented and I can't suggest an alternative because I don't know what it's trying to say.

General comment about the history sections. While Paris is obviously renowned for it's architecture, there are an awful lot of references to various administrations building bridges, boulevards etc. Could some of this be pruned, to maintain a focus on the significant historic events. There is an section devoted to architecture further down, and a link to an article devoted to it and the article is quite long in general. Scribolt (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, Paris has quite a complicated administrative situation, and a few numbers in that lede section refers to statistical areas used by few others than the statistical institutions themselves (and it is wriitten in that context)... that would best be covered in the demographics section, and I'm sure it already is. I'll see if I can clean that up a bit. THEPROMENADER   08:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Done, I hope that's better. THEPROMENADER   09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I dealt with the 'middle ages' section, too, and removed some (unexplained, context-less) extreme detail. THEPROMENADER   14:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Now that the context is clearer, perhaps the language could still use some work (so please do!); it's hard fitting all those history-bits together in an understandable way in such a small space. THEPROMENADER   15:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Good, yes, it's better now. I'm taking a stab at further tweaks. I want to highlight the following, because I'm going to re-write it.
  • "Paris' cultural centre had begun to move to the right bank, after the draining of its former swampland made the land habitable and fit for crops. The move was concretised with, where Les Halles is today, a 'Les Champeaux' city marketplace that, from 1137,(John Frederick Hinnebusch 1972, p. 262) replaced two smaller ones on the Île de la Cité and Place de la Grève (Hotel de Ville). The latter location housed the headquarters of Paris' river trade corporation, an organisation that became, unofficially (officially, in later years), Paris' first municipal government."
2nd para middle ages. I'm going to try to simplify it, but I suck at references and the John Frederick Hinnebusch bit looks strangely formatted in the current version. Please reinsert it if required. Scribolt (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep, there's a lot of info in that short passage. I'm not sure what's up with that reference, but I'll look into it after you're done if need be. THEPROMENADER   23:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure of how to present it simply in all that, but the 'new marketplace' became, from the Left Bank, the central island, and riverbanks, the 'new centre' of growth for the Right Bank - everything grew around it (butchers below, city central cemetery just beside it, etc), and it became almost the centre of a town in itself... its location is pretty important. THEPROMENADER   08:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Films and other media set n Paris[edit]

We could include a section about Paris as a setting in film. MohammedMohammedمحمد 08:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting idea for an article (really!), because it could be an article in itself (where would it start and end, and 'which' movies?), and this article is way too long as it is. If you do decide to start one, I can help, especially with the 'Paris' points of interest therein (Example: I just watched a Bertolucci film, 'The Conformist', that showed the Gare d'Orsay when it was a hotel, before it became a museum). THEPROMENADER   15:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposition: reducing the 'religious buildings' section to a 'religion' sub-heading in the 'culture' section.[edit]

The 'Relgious buildings' section is pretty predominant, yet it doesn't come near representing the myriad of faiths present in the city. Also, it doesn't fit in with the rest: it is neither 'architecture' nor 'culture', and, more complicated, 'religion' is already outlined in the demographics section.

I'd say it would be a good idea to merge the demographics' 'religion' sub-heading (side note: by law, religion is not part of French demographics anyway) with the 'religious buildings' section as a 'culture' sub-heading. That would also do a lot to shorten the article. Best. THEPROMENADER   07:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)