This article has undergone months of work by many and has much changed since its failed nomination for Featured status. This time around a peer review comes first.
I think this article could much benifit from a constructive critique about its a) accessiblility (unexplained names, places?) and b) language. Until now much of the work has been around the facts and content, so these fields perhaps could be improved. In addition to that, any comment on anything that could be improved would be a help. Also some help with what should/shouldn't have a citation would be helpful - don't hesitate to mark phrases needing citations with the citation needed template. (Last Edited by) THEPROMENADER 15:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- The "Name"-section is quite bloated and full of trivia. I don't see how the pronunciation of anything other than just Paris is relevant to an encyclopedic article. I would also like to see the pronunciation info condensed and inserted into the lead, just like with Beijing, Tokyo and Kolkata. And it is by no means acceptable to use any kind of image template that effectively renders the license information more or less impossible to find. Sounds files, just like image files, need to have easily accesible license information.
- I should add that I don't find the solution chosen for Berlin to be a good one.
- Thanks - added to the article "to do" list.
THEPROMENADER 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Name" section moved in its majority to a new
Paris (etymology) article, and all remaining cut to a bare and relevant minimum.
THEPROMENADER 17:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- The creation of special articles on the etymology of place names is a very bad precedent in my opinion. Etymology should be covered in the wiktionaries, not wikipedia. There is way too much pure dictionary information in many articles as it is.
-
Peter
Isotalo 10:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I created the new article to avoid eliminating the information outright - and I think there was enough content for a stub article. This article can expand, because the polemic on Paris' name is thousandfold and almost as long as its history, and its name variations (slang, etc) many. Yet, if you like, it can be moved to a more fitting namespace and the 'etymology' page can be speedily deleted.
THEPROMENADER 14:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- The namespace is not the issue; it's the fact that the information is of dubious encyclopedic value, but could be of good use to Wiktionary. There's simply too much etymology cruft in Wikipedia as I see it. At the same time far too many wiktionary articles lack even them most basic etymological information. It's a question of focus and recognition of other WikiMedia projects rather than AfD:ing certain information.
- Peter Isotalo 13:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I created the new article to avoid eliminating the information outright - and I think there was enough content for a stub article. This article can expand, because the polemic on Paris' name is thousandfold and almost as long as its history, and its name variations (slang, etc) many. Yet, if you like, it can be moved to a more fitting namespace and the 'etymology' page can be speedily deleted.
THEPROMENADER 14:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Name" section moved in its majority to a new
Paris (etymology) article, and all remaining cut to a bare and relevant minimum.
THEPROMENADER 17:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - added to the article "to do" list.
THEPROMENADER 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Review by thunderboltza.k.a.D eepu Joseph | TALK
- 1. It is widely regarded as one of the world's major global cities. - though I and you know its true, it would still need a reference.
- 2. Situated on the banks of the river Seine in north-central France, ..... - sentence is too long. Consider breaking into two.
- 3. Paris hosts a rich array of museums, galleries, ..... - Rich array of nightlife? What is that? Needs rewording.
- 4. link Celtic, Place Louis XV, Egyptian, obelisk, Basilica du Sacré Cœur, The Grande Arche in La Défense, and all other proper nouns in the article.
- 5. about 26 times larger than the Paris commune, or an area about 138 times that of Paris itself, - unnecessary trivia. Such addages make sentences extremely long and complex. Consider rewording/breaking.
- 6. In 1929 the Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes forest parks were also officially incorporated into the city. needs a ref to verify date.
- 7. but has been recorded as late as April - needs citation
- 8. called "la plus belle avenue du monde" ("the most beautiful avenue in the world"). - The french is unnecessary here. Just the english will do.
- 9. The Egyptian obelisk it holds today can be considered Paris's "oldest monument". -- needs reference.
- 10. IMO, the Districts and historical centres should just mention the districts and leave out the description (Just as the India article describes its states — sans the description).
- 11. Because of its historical value the - tsk, tsk... grammar - sentences do not start with because en anglais (and if my french techer is to be believed, neither in french).
- 12. There are many more looong sentences in the article. Try fixing them up.
- 13. Most claims in the history section lack references.(eg: It is certain that after the Roman Empire conquered the region in 52 BC, the Romans built their city of Lutetia on the left bank Sainte Geneviève Hill.)
- 14. The population of the City of Paris - If "City of Paris" isnt an official name, it neednt be capitalised.
- Ville de Paris is an official name (all capitalised). I think it is important to use City of Paris (with capital C) when referring to the administrative city proper, and city (lower-case c) when referring more loosely to the larger connurbation/agglomeration. Thus, one could say that none of the water plants serving the city are located within the City of Paris.
Hardouin 12:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the capitalisation of "City of Paris" because of the official "Ville de Paris" appellation, but the argument following has no practical use: Paris as an agglomeration is always referred to as l'agglomeration Parisienne, never just "Paris", and most certainly never as "city of Paris". THEPROMENADER 13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum - On second thought, "City" in "City of Paris" is capitalised when speaking of an act or decision of the town hall or the same as an entity (like "sponsored by the City of Paris"), but not when simple references to Paris as a city (eg.: "in the city of Paris"). Have a look on the English version of the official mairie de Paris website for evidence of this. THEPROMENADER 22:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ville de Paris is an official name (all capitalised). I think it is important to use City of Paris (with capital C) when referring to the administrative city proper, and city (lower-case c) when referring more loosely to the larger connurbation/agglomeration. Thus, one could say that none of the water plants serving the city are located within the City of Paris.
Hardouin 12:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- 15. Try trimming the page in Summary style, moving unnecessary trivia to subpages.
- 16. Add references to all sentences like The City of Paris is the most densely populated area in the Western World after the island of Manhattan in New York City. , The population of the City of Paris was 2,125,246 at the 1999 census, lower than the historical peak of 2.9 million in 1921. etc.
I guess I've gone enough already. You must be thinking of killing me.;) -- thunderboltza.k.a.D eepu Joseph | TALK13:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- 1) indicated, 2) done, 3) done ... THEPROMENADER 17:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)