This review is transcluded from Talk:Olympic Village (Paris)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 10:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DrOrinScrivello (talk · contribs) 17:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am going to review this article. This is my first GA review, but I'm doing it in conjunction with the current backlog drive so an experienced reviewer will eventually double check that I did everything correctly. My first read-through shows me the article is already in great shape, but I'll be posting comments here over the next couple of days as I go over it more thoroughly. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking part in this review as an experienced editor for the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025. I'm excited to work alongside DrOrinScrivello, I have outlined my process with GAN reviews at User:IntentionallyDense/October 2024 GAN backlog drive if you are curious. If you (or the nominator) have any questions at all feel free to reach out on my talk page or ping me here. Cheers! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 15:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are general notes I've made as I'm going through. Some are suggestions that do not fall under the aegis of the GA criteria; feel free to implement or ignore those as you see fit. Much of this is relatively minor - it doesn't seem for now like I'll need to suggest any sweeping changes. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding a {{convert}} template to the distance in the lead, second para

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• which is terminus of Paris Metro Line 14 Should this be "the terminus"? (I'm admittedly not an expert in mass transit terminology)

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• and is planned to eventually be also connected to lines 15, 16, and 17 I don't see where this is supported by a source in the article's body, and even if it were I'm not sure it's an important enough detail to be included in the lead.

  Y Added to the body, with a reference. Deleted from the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest an {{as of}} template for the final sentence of the lead

  Y Since it already is, removed from the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no longer space in Paris For the sake of clarity, I suggest "no longer space in Paris itself" or "in Paris proper" or "within Paris's city limits" or some such

  Y Good idea. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly clarify what the halls of the Cité du Cinéma are exactly

  Y Added that it is a film studio complex, with a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• but to be converted for housing This may be an ENGVAR issue but "converted into housing" sounds better to me

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Standardize the capitalization of "Athletes' Village", the "v" goes up and down through the article

  Y Standardised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only just realized that "Athletes'" varies in capitalization in the second half of the article as well. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ("Olympic Works Delivery Company") (Solideo), I'm not crazy about the back-to-back parentheticals. Maybe ("Olympic Works Delivery Company", also known as "Solideo") or something similar? Either way, no need for the comma after the parentheses

  Y Changed as suggested. Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For Solideo, the Olympic Games developments were guided by the principles of legacy and exemplarity. This comes off as a little peacock-ish and I don't know that it's all that necessary

  I think it is fine. Obviously will not be guiding principles in Los Angeles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, fair enough. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• encouraging companies to propose and experiment with innovations I recommend splitting this bit into its own sentence

  Y Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The law of 26 March 2018 relating to the organization of the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games, created exceptions Suggest changing to "A law passed on 26 March 2018 relating to the organization of the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games, creating exceptions..."

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Arcadis-Pichet Legendre Replace hyphen with endash

  Y Difficult. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of those stray "Athlete's village" capitalizations, all the changes above look good. For what it's worth, going into this review I read conflicting advice about whether or not to make small, uncontroversial changes myself or to just note them here, and I opted for the latter. I'm kind of regretting that now, but we're here now, and thankfully there aren't too many - I hope they're not too annoying. Anyway, following are some more comments from the rest of the prose: DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y I think I got the last of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a few places where convert templates might be welcome, but it's not a GA requirement so I'll leave it up to you. I'm torn myself, because there are places like the concrete densities where adding more numbers would make it a jumbled mess.

  The MOS (MOS:CONVERSIONS) is wishy-washy about it: "Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except when inserting a conversion would make a common or linked expression awkward". I normally only use the convert to map between old measurements in the source and metric. The French version uses metric only, which is reasonable. The conversion template would transform kilograms per cubic metre into pounds per cubic yard by default but I don't think that is right: the conversion probably would have been to pounds per cubic foot back then. Here, the important point for the reader is the ratio rather than the precise number which anyone who does not work in the concrete industry would be unfamiliar with anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• can cool the building by 6 to 10 degrees Celsius below the temperature. Recommend adding "external" or "outside" before "temperature".

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The paragraph that discusses the public spaces aspect needs some NPOV work. Looking at the original French version of the article, it appears as if that material was added by someone who has pretty much only edited that article and the one on Studio 5.5, who is mentioned later in the paragraph, and the stuff about the TER agency is (in the French version) cited to a primary source. In our article, the citation has been changed to a secondary source, but one that doesn't really support the language used here. I think the material itself is mostly good (especially the bit about recycling the street lamps) but can it be reworded in a more NPOV fashion that hews a little closer to the source? (i.e. designed for climatic conditions of 2050, gardens cover 40% of total area, etc)

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a lot better now, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A six hectare business park Hyphenate six-hectare

  Y Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• while the other site, also with 150 places, is due to be inaugurated in the fall of 2024 Has there been any update on this development? Also, I suggest that "units" or something similar works better than "places"

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A university restaurant was built on the ground floor, and an underground parking lot. Lose the comma at least, maybe change the "and" to "along with"?

I think this one may have been overlooked but I went ahead and made a small change to the article. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Integrated into the Cité du cinéma, Capitalize "Cinéma"

  Y Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• was completely rebuilt on the same street, and at a cost of €64.4 million Lose the comma and the "and"

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I find myself wanting a sentence or two at the end of the Handover section about the site's current use or plans thereof. Is there anything relevant you can find?

  Y Added a paragraph on progress so far. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for my comments regarding prose, breadth of coverage, and NPOV. Images and a source spot check will be coming shortly. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above changes look good. The article gets a Y pass on prose, breadth, and NPOV. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y All images are properly tagged with suitable licenses, relevant, and well-captioned. Suggest adding alt text at some point, but not a GA requirement. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to check reference numbers 1, 6, 12, 25, 32, 36, 42, 53, 60, and 67, as of this version. My ability to read French is fair-to-moderate, so I will be using Google translate to help a bit with some of these articles.

1: Y Good

6: Y Good

12: Y Good

25: This is actually a duplicate of Reference #27, and it is properly cited in that position. At #25, it is the fourth cite in a block of four, and doesn't cover that subject matter. #25 should be removed, #27 left as is.

Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

32: The source says 37 cranes, not 49, and the second citation on this sentence doesn't mention cranes.

Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

36: Y Good

42: Y Good

53: Y Good

60: Y Good

67: Y This is written by a Forbes 'Senior Contributor' which WP:FORBESCON warns against. However, that page gives lenience to subject matter experts, and this particular article says the author is a travel writer about France. While he doesn't say where he got the figure, it doesn't seem terribly controversial of a claim, so while I'd prefer a better source I think this is okay.

Just a couple of small fixes and the source check should be good to go. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where this is going. It has already appeared on DYK, and cannot see it going to FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with an article remaining at GA, and of course improvements to the article are inherently good in and of themselves. If nothing else, I've appreciated the chance to hone my reviewing skills on an interesting topic. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Issues with source check resolved. Earwig report shows nothing but proper nouns and a couple of phrases covered by WP:LIMITED, and the spot check showed no copyvio issues.

With that done, I am satisfied that this article meets all of the GA criteria. I'm going to go ahead and ping the experienced reviewer IntentionallyDense so they can take a look before I finalize anything. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your review looks great! Good job. I don't have any concerns about the review so feel free to move forward with passing this article. I hope to see you doing more reviews in the future as you seem to have a real knack for it! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: Thanks for taking a look, and for the compliment! And @Hawkeye7: Thank you for being my GA review guinea pig and for taking on my feedback (and for the well-written, interesting article). It's been a pleasure, and congratulations on the Good Article. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·