Talk:Cassel, Nord

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cassel, Nord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324210644/http://www.fortifications.org.uk/printfriendly.cfm?contentid=21 to http://www.fortifications.org.uk/printfriendly.cfm?contentid=21

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cassel, Nord/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I am Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I think the "Sights and cultures" list should be converted to prose. It's almost prose already, just needs some adjusting.Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for adjusting this section. Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit wars found. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Several of the images are lacking the US public domain tag. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

   Please refer to "Images" section below. Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   NIcely-done. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Finishing up this Review is On hold pending the US public domain tags issues in the "Images" section below. Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   Everything has been adjusted to my satisfaction & according to the GA Criteria. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

I would convert the Sights and culture section to prose. The embedded list is awkward and unnecessary (WP:PROSE). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've done this now. Prioryman (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Read-throughs

I will be doing a few more deep read-throughs to see if there's anything I missed but - other than converting the one section from List to Prose - so far I haven't really found found much of any great concern. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Images

The following 3 images lack the US public-domain tag and must be updated with that information before I can finish this GA Review:

• File:The battle between the Flemish and the French at Cassel.jpg
• File:ND - CASSEL - Grande-Place. Jour de Marché.JPG
• File:Van Eecke 100 MTIL - MONT-CASSEL - Vue générale - Les Moulins.JPG

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Prioryman: Have you had a chance to finish up the public-domain tags for these 3 images? Shearonink (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, all done now - thanks. Prioryman (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)