# Talk:Lise with a Parasol

I noticed that User:Viriditas took great effort to convert plain short citations to clickable links. IMO this is a positive step; however, the method chosen is quite odd and will make it difficult for future editors to continue – which they are obliged to do following WP:CITEVAR. I suggest to replace the custom citation anchors currently used with standard templates {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} that are designed for this purpose. This would also require that all cited works use some {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} or other appropriate templates. This will make it easier for future editors to maintain the chosen citation style. And yes, I'm volunteering. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: Hi, I’ve stopped using all forms of citation templates (as you can clearly see) because I went through a lot of problems getting the template maintainers to fix their templates when they broke many years ago.  At the time, they refused, and dozens of pages that I had worked on had broken templates for a very long time.  The maintainers of the templates claimed that these were just error messages,  meaning that editors had to fix previously correct template usage due to the whims of the template maintainers, who could break hundreds of articles whenever they made a change, thereby introducing "error messages" that others had to fix.  Having discussed the issue with the maintainers and come to no resolution (or realization on their part that the problem was solely caused by their changes) I decided to never use those templates ever again on a page that I created, forcing me to find a way to duplicate the functionality of the template in an altogether different way in plain text, hence the result you see.  I actually think it is easier to maintain the current style, as they are not subject to future template changes which can lead to broken citations.  Now, with all that said, I am not against switching to an even better format than old citation templates, such as one that draws upon Wikidata. So if you have something new and improved in mind, I’m definitely open to it, but I don’t want to go back to the old citation template format. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
You've got MOS:CITEVAR on your side, and I think citations using Wikidata, like {{Cite Q}}, are fraught. Thank you for your response, and I won't pursue the matter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lise with a Parasol/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GnocchiFan (talk · contribs) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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.
a (reference section):  b (inline 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

An excellent article, very in-depth and reliably sourced. Can see no issues with it whatsoever, looks good to go! –GnocchiFan (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned here, another user has noted issues with duplicate refs and possible references needed in footnotes, but says it doesn't need to be re-assessed. Apologies if this review was not sufficiently thorough; this is my first time reviewing articles for GA on Wikipedia. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
No problem.  Can you point out the dupe refs so I can fix them?  My eyes aren't as good as yours. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Neither can I, if truth be told. I've asked FunkMunk on his talk page. Thanks for your patience  GnocchiFan (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
No hurry on this.  I will also take a look later after I get back from work. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
FunkMunk didn't mention "duplicate refs" but WP:duplinks, better known as MOS:REPEATLINK. The ones I noticed are several paragraphs apart, so that's permissible under that guideline's "and at the first occurrence in a section". As for unreferenced footnotes: I see two, La Esméralda and the parents of George Bibescu; these seem trivial and non-controversial and unlikely to be challenged. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
No worries, no worries.  Just fixed both.[1]  The info about Bibescu I had in there was wrong.  Most embarrassing, I named his stepmother as his birth mother.  Now corrected.  Thank you everyone.  Please help identify additional issues if possible. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)