Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 18:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 20:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Seems like an interesting topic I've never heard of. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 15.3% with mostly quotes and proper nouns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable, no reverts.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Lead image meets fair use criteria as it is a unique event with few photographs.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.

• The section "Background" is far too detailed. It mentions unnecessary details about the historical context, citing sources that barely mention the Petit–Clamart attack. Don't go into more detail than necessary to understand the attack; if readers want further context, they can click the links to articles like Algerian War or the May 1958 crisis in France.

Should be  Done. E_F⁵ 22:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The references are very poorly formatted as they're taken directly from the French article. For a GAN, I can't require refs to be properly formatted, but I will require that you should make sure the refs are listed in English (i.e., get rid of French terms like "chapitre" and "sur le site" and the French quotation marks).

• More importantly, a few of the citations are bare URLs to dead links (the citations to charles-de-gaulle.com and ina.fr), which must be fixed. Also, the link to France Inter links to the website's homepage and not to the relevant source.'

• There are some statements and paragraphs without citations.

 Done E_F⁵ 22:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a minor image copyright issue. The photo of Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry is missing author information on Commons and its tag "public domain in countries where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer" is certainly incorrect.

 Done E_F⁵ 22:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear to me that some of these sources are reliable. The following sources should be replaced:

• bastien-thiry.com appears to be an unofficial website about Bastien-Thiry, although the text of the page cited is quoted from Bastien-Thiry himself. Regardless, I don't think it's appropriate to use a primary source for the motive of the attack, as such a claim would require analysis.
• France-Soir is an unreliable tabloid, based on what it says in the Wikipedia article about the newspaper.
• HistoryNet.com seems potentially unreliable based on RSN discussions. I'd prefer if there's a better source for this statement, but since RSN doesn't have an obvious consensus, I'll allow it.
• babelouedstory.com is (at best) a self-published source without a reputation and is certainly unusable.
• peinedemort.com is self-published.
• Secours de France is a biased source and I don't see it being cited by RSes, so I don't think it's reliable.
• La Cliothèque is a website for book reviews; the book itself could be a source but not this review.
• lissey.e-monsuite.com is self-published.
• Politique.net has an editorial staff, but I'm still not certain it's a reputed source.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: I'm going to withdraw this for now, I have too little time on my hands to properly address the various issues brought up. I also don't think it's up to par with what a GA should be; I nominated it without doing the proper checks. E_F⁵ 22:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• also referred to by its perpetrators as Operation Charlotte Corday after Charlotte Corday Not verified in body. The article should probably explain the reason for this name (I assume it's because Corday is a famous assassin) if it's mentioned in RSes.
• he justified his act by claiming that de Gaulle was a tyrant Not verified in body.
• remains the last person to be executed by firing squad in France is MOS:RELTIME. The word "remains" implies that he's the most recent but not necessarily the absolute last; if he is the absolute last, this should be more clear.
• This lead section is quite short. It should say more about the trial, the theories, and the vehicle.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, MOS:LAYOUT requires Template:Use dmy dates to be above the infobox. I've fixed this myself. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done some minor copyedits through the article for grammar and clarity, and to use Template:lang. It looks like you've made a few awkward choices with the translation, but they're a minor issue.
• You mention the last names of Buisines, Bernier, and Prévost before mentioning their full names.
• During the attack, de Boissieu shouted to the de Gaulles to duck, which prevented them from being hit. De Gaulle reported that his son-in-law ordered him to take shelter, telling him "Down, Father!" essentially says the same thing twice.
• sitting next to him on the return plane Unnecessary detail

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Include a translation for "Boiteuse"
• Among these two men was a deserter who bragged, saying said, "I’m from the OAS."
• Then, transferred to Paris, he continued his confession, giving gave Commissioner Bouvier all the names or nicknames of the conspirators that he knew.
• Six other defendants were tried in absentia; those absent, on the run, were Serge Bernier, Louis de Condé, Gyula Sári, Lajos Marton, Jean-Pierre Naudin, and Georges Watin. → Defendants Serge Bernier, Louis de Condé, Gyula Sári, Lajos Marton, Jean-Pierre Naudin, and Georges Watin were tried in absentia as they were on the run.
• Add a sentence mentioning the defense attorneys instead of putting them next to mentions of people's names, which is confusing.
• Far too much detail about Watin's life.
• However, this Court, which was to be replaced by another jurisdiction, the State Security Court, was extended by the law of 26 February 1963. Not relevant as it's to the future of the Petit-Clamart attack.
• On 4 March, at the end of the investigation against Bastien-Thiry, the Military Court of Justice found him Bastien-Thiry guilty of having planned and orchestrated the attack. since this would obviously be at the end of the investigation.
• benefited from received a presidential pardon
• Put the mention of the pardon after the mention of the sentences, to flow chronologically.
• Bastien-Thiry remains the last French prisoner to be executed by firing squad. is MOS:RELTIME
• On 2 February 1963, following the brief statements of his co-defendants present during the trial, the main accused of the Charlotte Corday operation, Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry pleaded in a lengthy speech self-defense in defense of himself and his "comrades" and against the "men of power" and in particular against the most powerful of them, the one whom his lawyer and future presidential candidate Jean-Louis Tixier-Vignancour nicknamed the "Prince". → On 2 February 1963, following brief statements by the co-defendants present during the trial, Bastien-Thiry gave a lengthy speech in defense of himself and his "comrades", in which he spoke against the "men of power", particularly the one that Tixier-Vignancour nicknamed the "Prince".
  • Also, who was the "Prince"? Surely that's relevant.
• Constituting the "Bastien-Thiry affair", the declaration, which René Wittmann published in a confidential edition on 20 February 1963 and whose publishing house close to the extreme right, Serp, published a 33-page paper the same year, which began with these words: This sentence is a bit long and unordered. Should be multiple sentences.
• from the 1960s to the present day is MOS:RELTIME
• The trial inspired a number of works from the 1960s to the present day, whether it be criticism of the death penalty, French public opinion then being predominantly unfavorable, or testimonies, the condemned man's family has since worked for his rehabilitation. through the "Bastien-Thiry circle," or counter-investigations; in Bastien-Thiry: to the end of French Algeria by Jean-Pax Méfret, a senior reporter, asks: "How did a man, endowed with deep Catholic convictions and superior cultural background, could it have come to this?". is a very confusingly ordered paragraph.
  • The quote from the book seems unnecessary.
• You mention that Bastien-Thiry's had the last execution by firing squad in both the "Trial" and "Bastien-Thiry" sections.
• were not long in coming I can't even understand what this means.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an alternative and controversial thesis is MOS:LABEL. It's vague and should be replaced with a description of the controversy.
• Far too much detail about Agnès de Marnhac and her book.
• The thesis of the kidnapping was denied in the media in 2005 (including the daily newspaper Present and the talk show program Tout le monde en parole) by the very members of the Petit-Clamart commando including Louis Honorat de Condé, Lajos Marton and Armand Belvisi. → Condé, Marton, and Belvisi denied the kidnapping theory in 2005, speaking with the daily newspaper Present and the talk show Tout le monde en parole
• It's not clear to me how the paragraph about Raoul Salan and Edmond Jouhaud is directly relevant to this topic.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• He seriously damaged the vehicle a few years later during an accident with his son during the winter of 1971 since it's redundant
• It is stored in a garage in Lissey, awaiting possible repairs. MOS:RELTIME statement, should specify "as of [year]".
• notably with the bullet holes marked by white crosses on the bodywork

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be reviewing 12 randomly selected sources, as of this revision. Remember that you will also need to address the sources that seem questionable or are permanently inaccessible (which I will skip in this spotcheck), as well as the several statements without citations. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @EF5: Seeing a few problems with the sources. Please address these, and quote the relevant passages from the offline sources; otherwise, I will mark this nom as failed. Placing on hold for now. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. E_F⁵ 22:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]