Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Review

Main	Talk	Noticeboard	Article Status	Article Requests	Departments	Members	Paris Task force	Quick Help	Links

The review department of WikiProject France is the project's forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope. This department performs internal reviews and provides a place where external (id est, official Wikipedia Reviews, such as Good Article and Featured Article reviews can be watched.

The goal of including external reviews is to notify members of particular articles which are being driven through Wikipedia's improvement process. Hopefully, by providing this forum, project members will be encouraged to participate in the amelioration of these articles.

The department hosts reviews internal to the project:

Peer review (an informal review meant to provide ideas for further improvement)

It also provides a convenient collection of France and French content currently undergoing featured content reviews outside the project. If knowledgeable, feel free to read or contribute to these reviews (however, these reviews are Transcluded from their source, which is external from Wikiproject France):

Featured article candidates
Featured article review
Featured list candidates

Several other discussion types use use transclusion friendly discussion. Below you will also find external discussion for:

Good Article Nomination Discussions
Article for deletion

Peer review

The peer review department of the France WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the France WikiProject. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete.

Instructions

WikiProject peer reviews
A Wikipedia Peer Review can be a useful way to improve articles associated with this WikiProject.

You can keep track of new reviews by watching this page; do that by clicking here. If your project has article alerts enabled, reviews will display on that list too.

To list your review below:

Create the peer review following instructions here.
Add [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Name of nominated article/archiveN]] - December 2024 at the top of the list of requests below (where N is the archive number).

When the review is finished:

Follow the general instructions for peer reviews here.
Move [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Name of nominated article/archiveN]] - MONTH - YEAR from the list of active reviews to the list of old reviews.

To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here.

Requests

Wikipedia:Peer review/Clipperton Island/archive1 - April 2023

Old reviews

Wikipedia:Peer_review/John_Calvin/archive1

Featured article candidates

Instructions

Featured article candidates are controlled by an external process; the listing below is merely a duplicate for the project's convenience. To nominate an article for featured article status, or to comment on a nomination, you must follow the official instructions.

To transclude the featured article candidate discussion, add {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Name of candidate article}} to the top of the list below. Also, please add the nomination to Open Reviews and Assessments.

If the article is promoted:

Remove the transclusion code from this list;
Remove the article link from the FA candidates list at Open Reviews and Assessments;
Add the article to the Article Status list, under the heading for Featured Articles;

edit

Featured list candidates

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 18 November 2008 [1].

List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes

previous FLC (02:57, 20 October 2008)

After a 15-day wait, I'm bringing this one back for FLC. Is there really anything I missed out on since last time? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Image:Bellflower Bunnies title card.JPG Do you mind removing those black bars at the side and re-uploading?~~
- They are now sufficiently invisible. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need four cites to back up one fact(6,7,8,9)? Wouldn't a cite that states all 4 countries suffice?
- Cite has been provided. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really going into detail, as it looks pretty good. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 02:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All issues I can see are addressed. I therefore lend my support. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - my comments from the previous FLC were resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRU_CO 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Good Article Discussions

Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Review/GAN Instructions

North Sea is currently undergoing GA review. Any assistance appreciated.SriMesh | talk 00:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notability is there, just needs content. Tagged with {{expand}} also. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Louise Boyvin d'Hardancourt Brillon de Jouy

Independent notability not established; neither being an aristocrat nor a friend of someone famous is adequate for this- notability is not inherited. Playing the harpsichord, however well, does not satisfy WP:MUSICIAN on its own, although I'm sure she could lay down a mean riff. Rodhull andemu 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not at all knowledgeable with the notability guidelines for composers (although, I did just now read them); and do not believe I can make a valid argument either way. I do note that she is mentioned in the Norton Grove Dictionary of Women Composers, but I don't know how to interpret the "reasonable length" criterion of the notability guidelines. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Books search [2] would appear to indicate that she was a notable composer/musician in her day, and notability does not expire. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion -- This article is little more than an unreferenced stub. It is categorised as "Women composers", but the text does not even state that she was a composer. Her relationship with Franklin is interesting, but does not establish her notability (and that is all the article covers so far). However, her status as a composer might do so. Her appearance in Grove is probably an indication that she is notable, but the article does not deal with that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Yvoire. Redirects are cheap. Black Kite 08:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evoir

I can't find a place named "Evoir" in France. It seems that the creator of this article was referring to Yvoire. Korg (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Korg (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yvoire, then. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, should be speedily redirected. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally considered the redirect, but I thought the spelling was rather implausible... Korg (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could be, but I can't find a mention of Evoir in France either (especially so near Geneve). Yvoire is legit. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no redirect then we'd have redirects for every possible typo variant on the whole of Wikipedia. And two short sentences hardly warrants a keep... --Fred McGarry (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's reasonable to have redirects for mis-spellings that people have been so confident about that they have begun a new article on the subject at them. If one person makes the mistake, others will in the future. Deleting the article just leaves us open to further cycles of mistake→new article→deletion discussion in the future, as this happens all over again. Redirecting the article, on the other hand, takes all future readers to the right place and prevents everyone's time being wasted with any further such cycles. Please read Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?. Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radu Bagdasar

Notability at best borderline, but seems to fail. He has indeed published a book, but I find no evidence of the "acclaim" mentioned in the first sentence. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 21:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find anything either. VG ☎ 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has published 3 books, over 50 articles and 300 collaborations at radios in Bucharest and Paris. Prolific in France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Nemes (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know quite a few profs that have over 100 papers, and they're not Wikipedia (they still fail WP:PROF). VG ☎ 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Peer review

Instructions

Requests

Old reviews

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes

Good Article Discussions

Articles for Deletion

Anne Louise Boyvin d'Hardancourt Brillon de Jouy

Evoir

Radu Bagdasar

Archives