# Talk:Givors canal

The units in the infobox render as feet-inches whereas these are rendered metres in the body of the article. This is due to the infobox used. Perhaps this infobox should be stripped as inappropriate for the subject, and the units aligned? -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a better infobox template? This one is annoying, with its lack of support for metric units, which seems a bit archaic. If not, the other option is to request improvement of the template. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Givors canal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Soham (talk · contribs) 11:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I am starting the GA review for the concerned article. Soham 11:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead
(French: Canal de Givors), IPA would be nice. Soham 17:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not confident with French IPA, and have no idea what the Franco-Provençal language IPA would be. I think this one has to wait for a native speaker. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Leave it, even some FA's don't have IPA. It's not a hard and fast requirement for a GA. Soham 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
What are Locks? Link. Soham 15:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Plans
Ref #4 WP:DEADLINK. Soham 17:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Looks like the content was moved to a new, dedicated site. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The rest looks fine, I'll read again and then give the verdict. Soham 14:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Soham.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Does not contain peacock, weasel words along with other kinds of puffery.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
27 refs for an article on such a regional topic is commendable. Most sources are either magazines or books by noted authors, moreover there is no sign or original research. Good for me.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Neutral POV, no issues regarding that.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No reversion of the primary author, no signs of WP:EW, article rock steady.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Good article passed, well done.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Givors canal. 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/20130914054840/http://www.forez-info.com/encyclopedie/le-saviez-vous-/18107-guillaume-roquille-1804-1860.html to http://www.forez-info.com/encyclopedie/le-saviez-vous-/18107-guillaume-roquille-1804-1860.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ville-dangesaintromain.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/journal19.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 04:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)