Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main Talk Noticeboard Article
Departments Members Paris
Task force

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):

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

Peer review

Spotless Group

Pierre Carbonnier

I translated this artcle from the french article and it needs a review from more frequent users. I would appreciate a peer review to look at what areas would need more explanation. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Antoine Waechter

I translated this artcle from a stub to (what I feel is) a comprehensive article. Perhaps there should still be research done on him, however I would appreciate a peer review to look at what areas would need more explanation. Jg325 (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Peer review/Spotless Group

L'Aurore (1944 newspaper)

I translated this myself and it needs a review from more frequent users (Wjkimmerle (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)) Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Peer review/The Women's March on Versailles

Yoann Gourcuff

Wouldn't mind getting someone's full opinion on the article as I have also nominated it to become a good article. Joao10Siamun (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Just finished adding a bunch of stuff from the French Menton page, among other places. Would love a second pair of eyes.

Angle O'Phial (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyrille Pierre Théodore Laplace

Just completed expansion of the article, would love to have someone run through it. \ / () 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Lazulilasher Good work. I am not sure what your goals are with this article (i.e. GA? A-class, etc); so, I will try and give some generic advice. You have done a great expansion on the article.

Here we go:

  • Watch NPOV terms: Laplace (November 7, 1793-1875) was a French navigator famous for his circumnavigation of the globe on board the La Favorite. Try --> Laplace...was a French navigator who circumnavigated the globe on board La Favorite. (la=the, no need for redundancy).
  • My curiosity is piqued: "Laplace was born at sea on November 7, 1793."; any details?
  • The same here: "After completing one of his hydrological assignments"; such as? What was the experiment? What was uncovered?
  • "He, at some point, was in command of a schooner in Gorée, Senegal." Do we not know?
  • Can we combine/simplify these similar ideas? "re-establishing French influence of the Indo-China area.[4] Laplace's prime objective was to re-establish French"
  • Any further information about his life outside of the circumnavigation? What did he do upon his return 1833-37?
  • Lastly, a minor copyediting point: try and have footnotes placed directly after punctuation.

I hope this helped with your improvement of the article. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. » \ / ( | ) 23:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Louvre Abu Dhabi

This article is currently a Good Article, and has the potential for a FA nomination. With a bit of work, I believe it will be up to scratch. Because of this, I would like to get the article reviewed so I can see what needs to be done. Jordan Contribs 20:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See current external peer review: Louvre Abu Dhabi. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Ogé

The article is an amalgam of two separate articles, both inadequately sourced. This has now been addressed with reference to the Louverture project. No huge concerns were raised about the information merged, although there may have been some small inconsistency of details which I may have taken an arbitrary stand on. I have just added a couple of links to Googlebooks, and will have a look at these at my leisure. The Louverture project is a wiki. A peer review and verification by knowledgeable persons with access to other material would be highly desirable.

Ohconfucius (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the article and it seemed fine. I added a reference but I'm unclear about wether it is OK to cite primary sources in Wikipedia articles.

External Peer Review

The following peer reviews are transcluded from their source page, which is external from the project. To add a peer review, visit the Peer Review page. You may follow the links to participate in the discussion.

John Calvin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning on bringing this to FAC. Based on past peer reviews of other articles, I suspect it is the prose that needs the most work, but any comments are welcome!

Thanks, RelHistBuff (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I just renamed the "Thought" section to "Theology" and I am going to rewrite it. For those peer reviewers, please ignore the Theology section for the moment. Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The new Theology section is almost done, so I have struck-through my comment. I will continue to copy-edit, though. I hope someone finds this article interesting enough to review. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It is on the backlog list - someone should review it in a few days Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I just added a Legacy section. The article is now complete. More advice is welcome! --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


  • "Jean was particularly precocious". It is probably my poor English, but "precocious" probably means here intellectually developed for his age. Correct?
Yes, it means he was particularly advanced or mature for his age. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "was converted to the reformed faith." If I am not wrong, there were many Reformation branches. Which one "attracted" him more? If my question is historically inaccurate, ignore it?
There is very little known about his conversion. At the time, the Reformation was just beginning (it was less than twenty years after the 95 theses). As Luther's publications were well-known, Calvin most likely heard about Luther first. There were other reformers that were Luther's contemporaries (e.g., Bucer and Zwingli) who had different points-of-view. He communicated with all the major reformers, but he ended up striking his own path. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Unknown reformers posted placards in various cities attacking the mass and it provoked a violent backlash against the Protestants." "It" refers to what?
I changed "it" to "this" so that the understanding is the posting of the placards. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "It was while in Strasbourg that Calvin's friends began to urge him to marry?" Why? Was there any theological significance?
The sources do hint at details on why his friends urged him. Cottret said, "Celibacy was hardly proper for a preacher of the gospel; it was important to set oneself apart from the old clergy by visibly embracing the life of ordinary men." Since this looked more like a historian analysis of the situation, I didn't put this in. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "was a consistent preacher and his style changed very little over the years." Did he have any rhetoric charisma as an ecclesiastical speecher?
It is not evident from the description given by Parker. He did not excite the crowds like Knox did. Here is an indication from Parker: "Like many reserved persons, he could forget himself in the pulpit and speak from the heart as easily as in print." --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Under torture, he confessed to several crimes. The civil court condemned him to death and he was beheaded." It was Calvin who initiated the tortures and the beheading?
This is an interesting question. The cited sources do not say that Calvin specifically asked for the tortures or the beheading. So I tried looking up other sources and found a small detail that the council appointed a commission to investigate. Another said that the magistrates beheaded Gruet with the consent of Calvin. I will add these in. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Theology" you could maybe focus on the issues that made him oppose the Catholic Church, namely their theological differences.
I was careful not to delve into that because the comparisons can get lengthy, but I will add some of the differences on major issues. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As I can understand reading the article, Calvin was not just a priest, but for a long time the strongest person in Geneva. Therefore, some comments or judgments of him as a political figure, and as a person who influenced politics in Switcherland (if he did so)?
He was very powerful within the church in Geneva. However, official church decisions were made by the Consistoire, so he did not have direct power. Calvin did not have any power in the civil area (politics). In fact, the politicians often clashed with the churchmen. It was only during his final nine years that he stood uncontested, but they were quiet years of mainly writing theological works and giving sermons. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, a compehensive and well-written article (as usual) and probably a well-deserved future FA article, which I am not, however, 100% sure that it sheds light to all the aspects of this complex personalities.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


Overall, this looks like a fairly comprehensive article.

  • I think the first sentence of the lead ought to stress that he was the central deeloper of Calvinism, and leave the French theologian part until later. His contribution to Calvinism is most important.
Rewritten a bit. Although he established the theology, Calvinism has moved on much further. So really he was simply a theologian rather than a "developer" of a system of theology. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Does "Biography" really need to be a section, or would it make more sense to move all those subsections up to main section level?
This was the original existing hierarchy. I agree the top level section is unnecessary. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose is okay, but not quite at "brilliant" level. A bit of massaging is in order.
I know, this is my weakness as seen in all the other peer reviews that I've had. Physicist background unfortunately, i.e., all equations, no prose! I will go through the article again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "His eighteen-month stay in Bourges had a decisive impact on his development as it was here where he learned Greek." - at this point, the reader doesn't understand why learning Greek is a "decisive impact on his development"
Added clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This sentence in particular seems very awkward: Calvin would later update and produce new editions of the book, but in 1536, this was the first expression of his theology
Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "with his brother Antoine who was in the process of winding up their parents' affairs" - I assume this means that his father had recently died; since the mother died a long time before, should this instead be "their father's affairs"?
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Following the Edict of Coucy which gave a limited six month period for heretics to reconcile with the Catholic faith, Calvin decided that there was no future for him in France" - is it important to note what the penalty for nonconversion would be after that?
This wasn't made explicit, but the intention was for heresy to be extirpated. Persecution of reformers occurred before and after the period of the edict. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I assumed that the Edict of coucy was a bit of a cease-fire, but then the next sentence mentions that Calvin had to detour to avoid troops; was he wanted in particular or were all protestants in danger?
The Edict was an internal French affair to deal with heretics. The troop movements were a military squabble between France and the Holy Roman Empire separate from the religious issue. The source just noted this was reason for the detour and gave no other details. I changed the wording a bit. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What exactly was Farel's cause? Reform in France? Reform in general?
Reform the church in Geneva. Changed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • who voted in his election to pastor?
Parker said he was elected, but gave no details. Cottret provides a bit more info. Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • what made Calvin and Farel's reputations suffer? just that they recommended the subscription requirement?....Wait, I see this addressed a little later....hmmm...wonder if that should be reordered at all?
Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There were three items that contributed: the subscription requirement, the rumours, and the unleavened bread argument. I separated the paragraph and changed the wording so hopefully it is clearer now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This seems a bit melodramatic: "Farel and Calvin were refugees once again, homeless and penniless"
Removed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of phrasing along the lines of "it was there"..../"it was then".../"it was while"... Many times, this wording is redundant
Tried to catch most of these. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In the section on Minister in Strasbourg, the text talks first about his time in Strasbourg and his relationship with Bucer, then discusses how this affected Geneva, before the reader ever learns that Calvin returned to Geneva. There are other minor organizational issues like this in the text too.
I think that's due to the paragraph on Bucer and Calvin which is on their relationship, not on the biography. I've temporarily taken it out. I'm not sure where I can introduce it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "In analysing his sermons, Calvin was a consistent preacher and his style changed very little over the years" - this likely needs to be attributed to a scholar
It is from Parker and it is cited. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Yannis that it might be nice to see a bit of comparison between what he believed and what the Catholic Church taught at that time. It wouldn't hurt the article to stress a bit more just how radical some of Calvin's ideas were.
Done. I should point out that the opinion that many of Calvin's ideas were of an extreme nature is due to certain past biographers. In fact modern sources point out that his views were very much in common with the other major reformers. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC) PS. I'm not watching the page, so if you have any questions, please ping me on my talk.

  • Sorry, I was reading the article and the PR was closed! "(né Jean Cauvin)" First, isn't it née? And doesn't that mean formerly? It would be better to say that Jean Cauvin is the French name. It's not his former name, John Calvin is just Anglicised. Reywas92Talk 17:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Too bad you were not able to comment before the bot closed the PR; otherwise your comment would have extended the life for the PR for another two weeks. in French means "born" and née is the feminine form. The usage is accepted in English. The word is appropriate in that he was born Cauvin, but the latinised name Calvinus shortened to Calvin is the accepted name (in both French and English). I will address the unanswered comments in the PR before submitting the article to FAC. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates


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:

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

Featured list candidates

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)

Articles for Deletion


Peer review
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Review"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA