Talk:History of medicine in France/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 08:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will take up this review. Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article! A "good article" is reviewed against six criteria below. I don't think this article meets those criteria but will keep the review open for a few days to give you a chance to respond. Yours --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This isn't a full review but I have put the table up above to give you an idea of what you are contending with. This article:

Needs more references, so that content can be verified
Needs pages to be provided with book references
Could do with some images, which help illustrate the text
Needs to use more WP:WIKILINKs, so that readers can help understand the topics more
Needs to make mention of prechristian France, eg Frankish, Roman, Celtic medicine
Needs to make mention of the contributions of French people to medicine after 1800

Rome wasn't built in a day; please don't take this too harshly, but this article is very new and may need some time to gestate and mature before it is suitable for GA. Will keep this review open for a few days then close. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failed per above.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]