![]() | Lazare Ponticelli is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If we say 'of Italian descent', that would include ANYONE who has Italian ancestors...→ R Young { yakł talk} 11:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Since that's NOT my name, what a stupid comment, Bart. Thanks for lowering the level of discussion.→ R Young { yakł talk} 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you add "of Italian descent"? He's definitely Italian since he has Italian nationality. Mitch1981 ( talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoever has Italian parents is Italian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.37.141 ( talk) 12:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have already made any changes that took me less time to make than it would have to explain. Here are some comments:
As a side comment, and not one that I'm going to hold against passing this as a Good Article, the article would probably benefit from more foreign-language sources. Obviously if you can't speak the language, then there's nothing that can be done but, if you're looking for ways to further improve the article, that might be something to think about. Anyhow, to allow for these concerns to be addressed, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Cheers, CP 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone should add a wikilink-redirect to the current "Surviving Veterans of WWI" for Fernand Goux... Ryoung122 13:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A. Will Fernand Goux outlive Pierre Picault (if there is a Pierre Picault...so far all we have is Laurent's word for it).
B. Will another French veteran be discovered?
C. Will Mr. Goux gain media attention?
I note the case of the Last Confederate Widow...
http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/maudie_hopkins.htm
(by the way, it appears there is no article...perhaps there needs to be one, as a cultural icon article...paging Lucy Marsden...)
after a woman who was the established pick for the last Confederate widow died, another claimant emerged, but little attention has been given to this woman. I agree Wikipedia is not the place to establish notoriety...that would be original research. However, if someone is going to bother to read the Lazare Ponticelli article I'm sure they would be interested in Fernand Goux, and right now more information is available, but there is no link for it. So, adding a link/redirect to "Surviving Veterans of WWI" would be appropriate. If/when he dies, it wouldn't be too much to change that link to "veterans who died in 2008" or "2009" or whatever year he dies in. Also, given the uniqueness of his existence, his existence won't ever be totally irrelevant unless it can be shown to be a hoax--because Mr. Ponticelli died in March, and Mr Goux is still living...
Sincerely, Robert Young
The amount of work you may have put into this article should have no effect on the decisions here. It's an emotionally charged response and doesn't deal with the real issue here. There is no source to support your contention that Fernand Goux is a faker. Calling this "original research" is just another straw-man argument. I knew about this case for quite some time but held it back as an "anonymous veteran." When the case finally went to the press, that is when it appeared on Wikipedia (and no, I didn't add him...Captain Celery doesn't even have a Wiki e-mail address, and you apparently don't either, so there was no way to contact him while I was on Wiki-vacation). In addition, there is a lot of understanding that what one means by "veteran" differs by different sources. In this case, the French rules for establishing someone as a "veteran" are quite strict (I think something like a 90-day minimum in combat) while the American standards are quite loose (one hour as a recruit counts).
I myself understand that Edna Parker is the "official" world's oldest person, but others claim to be extreme ages. Wikipedia supports a pluralistic approach and that means we have articles on both the official line and the competing claimants. That isn't really the issue here, though...The Fernand Goux case has been vetted by Frederic Mathieu, and has been cited in at least one fairly reliable source, and a number of sources, actually:
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/06/19/460271-Le-dernier-Poilu-de-14-18-n-est-pas-mort.html http://mctproduction.over-blog.com/article-20632722.html
Additionally, I 'have' been saying for over three years that the French "veteran-finders" were disappointed at the French government not giving them their due for finding veterans such as Rene Riffaud and Francois Jaffre, who were mentioned on the Wikipedia talk pages and other sources months, even years, before the French government "discovered" them--and thus planned to withhold all additional finds, in hopes of embarrassing the French government into recognizing the "wrong" veteran. All that has come to pass.
Le dernier Poilu de 14-18 n'est pas mort L'Histoire du jour LaDepeche.fr | 19 Juin 2008 | 09h27
DDMQuatre mois après le décès de Lazare Ponticelli, dernier Poilu décédé le 12 février à l'âge de 110 ans, un spécialiste de la Grande guerre a retrouvé un Français de 108 ans, qui était au front début novembre 1918 mais qui ne possède pas le statut d'ancien combattant.
Frédéric Mathieu, créateur et animateur du site spécialisé consacré aux derniers vétérans de la guerre de 14-18 (www.dersdesders.free.fr), publie dans le prochain numéro du Journal des Combattants, bi-mensuel crée en 1916, un article sur cet homme.
Fernand Goux, né le 31 décembre 1899 à Sceaux-en-Gatinais (Loiret), a été incorporé le 19 avril 1918 au 85e régiment d'infanterie, puis affecté à l'arrière des lignes (ravitaillement des troupes et enterrement des soldats tués).
Affecté au 82e RI le 3 novembre, il est envoyé au front où il ne reste que quelques jours en raison de l'armistice du 11 novembre 1918.
Mais cet ancien agriculteur, qui vit aujourd'hui en Ile-de-France, ne peut prétendre au statut officiel d'ancien combattant puisqu'il n'a pas, selon l'Office national des anciens combattants (ONAC), passé au moins 90 jours dans une unité combattante, ni été fait prisonnier, ni évacué pour blessure, ni subi une maladie contractée pendant le service. Alors qu'il est aujourd'hui le dernier représentant vivant de la Grande guerre, on peut espérer que la nation reconnaisse, enfin, à cet homme qui s'est engagé à 18 ans, le statut d'ancien combattant.
Let me ask a question: did Alexander Graham Bell invent the telephone, or did Elisha Gray? Did the Wright brothers invent the airplane, or was it Gustave Whitehead? Simply because a viewpoint is not the "establishment" pick does not make it "original research". As an historian, with multiple degrees in history, I understand the motivations and objectives behind the constructions of history. In this case, Lazarre Ponticelli fits the bill as the last "poilu" and since the rules state a minimum of 90 days of combat service, I won't dispute that. But the definition of "veteran" varies by nation and Mr. Goux would certainly qualify as a veteran if he served in the UK or the American armed forces at the same time. Adding a link to another article on Wikipedia hardly qualifies as "original research."
Sincerely, Robert Young
Also, it is possible that Pierre Picault will replace Mr Ponticelli (my sources told me this is a possibility) eventually as the last "poilu" as I heard he was a combat veteran for more than 90 days, but until we have a news story, there's nothing to worry about.
If you would like to talk to me, you can use my talk page...I could not find your talk page, and your e-mail was not working.
Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to build a concensus about date links on the article. My opinion is that we should link 1897 and 2008, to show the reader how different the world was when Ponticelli was born from when he died. This was how the article was working until the date linking deletionists came along. ~the editorofthewiki ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Slight issue: In the prose, his date of birth is said to be the 7th or the 24th, but above the picture it says 14th or 24th. SiameseTurtle ( talk) 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The density and repetition of citation numbers needs to be addressed, particularly given that the sources are all readily viewable on the Internet. In other words, there's more latitude in avoiding the continued pinpointing of sources for every single statement, often consecutively with the same number, and often multiple numbers. In "Early life", I see successively:
2, 3, 3, 4, 2/3/4, 2/5/6. That's beyond a joke; they threaten to irritate the reader and clutter the visual appearance of the text.
Here's the last bit:
At the age of six, Ponticelli started working several jobs, including making clogs.[4] In 1906, at age nine, he saved enough money to buy a train ticket to Paris, which he considered "paradise".[2][3][4] Although he spoke no French, he found work as a chimney sweep in Nogent-sur-Marne and later as a paper boy in Paris.[2][5][6]
Prose:
Here, the statement doesn't really flow from the previous text, and appears to need more context: "In one of his last interviews, Ponticelli stated he was amazed at his own survival."
And here, the sentence twists this way and that, and ends up on the mysterious "products" (his semen?): "During the Second World War Ponticelli, who became a French citizen in 1939, was too old for combat, although he supported the war effort by supplying soldiers with his products."
Is this worthy of the label "one of our very best articles"? Tony (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Part of the ownership issue on display here is the griping expectation that one shouldn't criticise if one is not actively engaged in editing the article. Become an owner or shut up, it seems. I will do neither.
Now, let's take a look at the footnote text for the opening date:
Ponticelli's date of birth is not known with certainty (uncertain?). Officially, it is (was?) December 7, 1897, although this is likely (to be) a mistake.
Most probably,it was (probably) recorded as December 27, 1897 in the civil registry and the 2 (add quotemarks?)waserased. Ponticelli's mother remembered giving birth on December 24 and (that?) a snowstorm delayed any exit from the house for three days.
What has her memory of the snowstorm got to do with the price of fish?
What is "officially"?
Where are the citations for all of these assertions? Is there some misunderstanding about the need for verification within footnote text?
This is a serious breach of Criterion 1c, as well as 1a.
Let's take a look at this now very prominent link right at the opening, to 1897. After quite irrelevant information in the lead, we plunge into these facts:
Which part of this sea of facts is relevant to the reader's understanding of the topic? Tony (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"Longest-surviving"—have I mangled the concept of "oldest"? Unsure. Tony (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
"He also was a disgusting old man." Er, what's that all about? Vandalism? AadaamS ( talk) 09:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
On an unrelated and irrelevant topic (since this seems to be the place for it), my initial concern with the Lazare Ponticelli article was (what I see as) over-referencing. I feel that the current fetish of placing a citation at the end of just about every sentence is just scary for the average reader—and doesn't seem appropriate for such non-academic-type articles. Of course, it's just a personal dislike, and unfortunately I don't think that particular concern made much of an impact on Tony. :-( Thank goodness that my other concerns were enough to motivate Tony to action. HWV 258 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
HWV258, see my proposal to toggle display of in-line cites (off by default), which I floated in the Village Pump last November and which went down like a lead balloon. It is partly as a vehicle to allay my frustrations from that experience that I became a late confederate in the quest to delink nearly all day, month and year dates. We share the same overarching desire to cut down on the "sea of blue" in articles. By the way, I have seen Articles that were O.K. more than a year ago but a terrible mess more recently, not just in formatting and appearance but also in NPOV, Due Weight, Reliability of Sources, and Verifiability. Perhaps on average WP articles get better, but not a few get worse.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 03:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
They don't work for me. -- Kendrick7 talk 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the Later Life section discusses events of 2009-03-17 in the past tense. Which is correct? The past tense or the 2009-03-17 date? 204.210.242.157 ( talk) 16:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I decided to come back and have a quick look at this article, however I stopped reading after the second "sentence": Born in Italy, he travelled at the age of eight (8) on his own in 1906. Without a reference, it's hard to know to what this refers (let alone be able to fix it). I am surprised to see this in a FA. Is this just article rot, or has the FA process collapsed? (The problem was introduced with this edit.) P.S. appending the "(8)" is horrible. HWV258 . 21:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The whole article needs a sift through. For example: "Born in Italy, he travelled at the age of eight (8) on his own in 1906." is just weird.
"Ponticelli was the oldest living man of Italian birth and the oldest man living in France"—after what year?
There's chain linking (Sarkozy and French President?) and repeat linking (how many times WW1?).
MOS issues: for example, a quotation is rendered entirely in italics. Tony (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lazare Ponticelli. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Lazare Ponticelli is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If we say 'of Italian descent', that would include ANYONE who has Italian ancestors...→ R Young { yakł talk} 11:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Since that's NOT my name, what a stupid comment, Bart. Thanks for lowering the level of discussion.→ R Young { yakł talk} 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you add "of Italian descent"? He's definitely Italian since he has Italian nationality. Mitch1981 ( talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoever has Italian parents is Italian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.37.141 ( talk) 12:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have already made any changes that took me less time to make than it would have to explain. Here are some comments:
As a side comment, and not one that I'm going to hold against passing this as a Good Article, the article would probably benefit from more foreign-language sources. Obviously if you can't speak the language, then there's nothing that can be done but, if you're looking for ways to further improve the article, that might be something to think about. Anyhow, to allow for these concerns to be addressed, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Cheers, CP 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone should add a wikilink-redirect to the current "Surviving Veterans of WWI" for Fernand Goux... Ryoung122 13:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A. Will Fernand Goux outlive Pierre Picault (if there is a Pierre Picault...so far all we have is Laurent's word for it).
B. Will another French veteran be discovered?
C. Will Mr. Goux gain media attention?
I note the case of the Last Confederate Widow...
http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/maudie_hopkins.htm
(by the way, it appears there is no article...perhaps there needs to be one, as a cultural icon article...paging Lucy Marsden...)
after a woman who was the established pick for the last Confederate widow died, another claimant emerged, but little attention has been given to this woman. I agree Wikipedia is not the place to establish notoriety...that would be original research. However, if someone is going to bother to read the Lazare Ponticelli article I'm sure they would be interested in Fernand Goux, and right now more information is available, but there is no link for it. So, adding a link/redirect to "Surviving Veterans of WWI" would be appropriate. If/when he dies, it wouldn't be too much to change that link to "veterans who died in 2008" or "2009" or whatever year he dies in. Also, given the uniqueness of his existence, his existence won't ever be totally irrelevant unless it can be shown to be a hoax--because Mr. Ponticelli died in March, and Mr Goux is still living...
Sincerely, Robert Young
The amount of work you may have put into this article should have no effect on the decisions here. It's an emotionally charged response and doesn't deal with the real issue here. There is no source to support your contention that Fernand Goux is a faker. Calling this "original research" is just another straw-man argument. I knew about this case for quite some time but held it back as an "anonymous veteran." When the case finally went to the press, that is when it appeared on Wikipedia (and no, I didn't add him...Captain Celery doesn't even have a Wiki e-mail address, and you apparently don't either, so there was no way to contact him while I was on Wiki-vacation). In addition, there is a lot of understanding that what one means by "veteran" differs by different sources. In this case, the French rules for establishing someone as a "veteran" are quite strict (I think something like a 90-day minimum in combat) while the American standards are quite loose (one hour as a recruit counts).
I myself understand that Edna Parker is the "official" world's oldest person, but others claim to be extreme ages. Wikipedia supports a pluralistic approach and that means we have articles on both the official line and the competing claimants. That isn't really the issue here, though...The Fernand Goux case has been vetted by Frederic Mathieu, and has been cited in at least one fairly reliable source, and a number of sources, actually:
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/06/19/460271-Le-dernier-Poilu-de-14-18-n-est-pas-mort.html http://mctproduction.over-blog.com/article-20632722.html
Additionally, I 'have' been saying for over three years that the French "veteran-finders" were disappointed at the French government not giving them their due for finding veterans such as Rene Riffaud and Francois Jaffre, who were mentioned on the Wikipedia talk pages and other sources months, even years, before the French government "discovered" them--and thus planned to withhold all additional finds, in hopes of embarrassing the French government into recognizing the "wrong" veteran. All that has come to pass.
Le dernier Poilu de 14-18 n'est pas mort L'Histoire du jour LaDepeche.fr | 19 Juin 2008 | 09h27
DDMQuatre mois après le décès de Lazare Ponticelli, dernier Poilu décédé le 12 février à l'âge de 110 ans, un spécialiste de la Grande guerre a retrouvé un Français de 108 ans, qui était au front début novembre 1918 mais qui ne possède pas le statut d'ancien combattant.
Frédéric Mathieu, créateur et animateur du site spécialisé consacré aux derniers vétérans de la guerre de 14-18 (www.dersdesders.free.fr), publie dans le prochain numéro du Journal des Combattants, bi-mensuel crée en 1916, un article sur cet homme.
Fernand Goux, né le 31 décembre 1899 à Sceaux-en-Gatinais (Loiret), a été incorporé le 19 avril 1918 au 85e régiment d'infanterie, puis affecté à l'arrière des lignes (ravitaillement des troupes et enterrement des soldats tués).
Affecté au 82e RI le 3 novembre, il est envoyé au front où il ne reste que quelques jours en raison de l'armistice du 11 novembre 1918.
Mais cet ancien agriculteur, qui vit aujourd'hui en Ile-de-France, ne peut prétendre au statut officiel d'ancien combattant puisqu'il n'a pas, selon l'Office national des anciens combattants (ONAC), passé au moins 90 jours dans une unité combattante, ni été fait prisonnier, ni évacué pour blessure, ni subi une maladie contractée pendant le service. Alors qu'il est aujourd'hui le dernier représentant vivant de la Grande guerre, on peut espérer que la nation reconnaisse, enfin, à cet homme qui s'est engagé à 18 ans, le statut d'ancien combattant.
Let me ask a question: did Alexander Graham Bell invent the telephone, or did Elisha Gray? Did the Wright brothers invent the airplane, or was it Gustave Whitehead? Simply because a viewpoint is not the "establishment" pick does not make it "original research". As an historian, with multiple degrees in history, I understand the motivations and objectives behind the constructions of history. In this case, Lazarre Ponticelli fits the bill as the last "poilu" and since the rules state a minimum of 90 days of combat service, I won't dispute that. But the definition of "veteran" varies by nation and Mr. Goux would certainly qualify as a veteran if he served in the UK or the American armed forces at the same time. Adding a link to another article on Wikipedia hardly qualifies as "original research."
Sincerely, Robert Young
Also, it is possible that Pierre Picault will replace Mr Ponticelli (my sources told me this is a possibility) eventually as the last "poilu" as I heard he was a combat veteran for more than 90 days, but until we have a news story, there's nothing to worry about.
If you would like to talk to me, you can use my talk page...I could not find your talk page, and your e-mail was not working.
Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to build a concensus about date links on the article. My opinion is that we should link 1897 and 2008, to show the reader how different the world was when Ponticelli was born from when he died. This was how the article was working until the date linking deletionists came along. ~the editorofthewiki ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Slight issue: In the prose, his date of birth is said to be the 7th or the 24th, but above the picture it says 14th or 24th. SiameseTurtle ( talk) 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The density and repetition of citation numbers needs to be addressed, particularly given that the sources are all readily viewable on the Internet. In other words, there's more latitude in avoiding the continued pinpointing of sources for every single statement, often consecutively with the same number, and often multiple numbers. In "Early life", I see successively:
2, 3, 3, 4, 2/3/4, 2/5/6. That's beyond a joke; they threaten to irritate the reader and clutter the visual appearance of the text.
Here's the last bit:
At the age of six, Ponticelli started working several jobs, including making clogs.[4] In 1906, at age nine, he saved enough money to buy a train ticket to Paris, which he considered "paradise".[2][3][4] Although he spoke no French, he found work as a chimney sweep in Nogent-sur-Marne and later as a paper boy in Paris.[2][5][6]
Prose:
Here, the statement doesn't really flow from the previous text, and appears to need more context: "In one of his last interviews, Ponticelli stated he was amazed at his own survival."
And here, the sentence twists this way and that, and ends up on the mysterious "products" (his semen?): "During the Second World War Ponticelli, who became a French citizen in 1939, was too old for combat, although he supported the war effort by supplying soldiers with his products."
Is this worthy of the label "one of our very best articles"? Tony (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Part of the ownership issue on display here is the griping expectation that one shouldn't criticise if one is not actively engaged in editing the article. Become an owner or shut up, it seems. I will do neither.
Now, let's take a look at the footnote text for the opening date:
Ponticelli's date of birth is not known with certainty (uncertain?). Officially, it is (was?) December 7, 1897, although this is likely (to be) a mistake.
Most probably,it was (probably) recorded as December 27, 1897 in the civil registry and the 2 (add quotemarks?)waserased. Ponticelli's mother remembered giving birth on December 24 and (that?) a snowstorm delayed any exit from the house for three days.
What has her memory of the snowstorm got to do with the price of fish?
What is "officially"?
Where are the citations for all of these assertions? Is there some misunderstanding about the need for verification within footnote text?
This is a serious breach of Criterion 1c, as well as 1a.
Let's take a look at this now very prominent link right at the opening, to 1897. After quite irrelevant information in the lead, we plunge into these facts:
Which part of this sea of facts is relevant to the reader's understanding of the topic? Tony (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"Longest-surviving"—have I mangled the concept of "oldest"? Unsure. Tony (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
"He also was a disgusting old man." Er, what's that all about? Vandalism? AadaamS ( talk) 09:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
On an unrelated and irrelevant topic (since this seems to be the place for it), my initial concern with the Lazare Ponticelli article was (what I see as) over-referencing. I feel that the current fetish of placing a citation at the end of just about every sentence is just scary for the average reader—and doesn't seem appropriate for such non-academic-type articles. Of course, it's just a personal dislike, and unfortunately I don't think that particular concern made much of an impact on Tony. :-( Thank goodness that my other concerns were enough to motivate Tony to action. HWV 258 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
HWV258, see my proposal to toggle display of in-line cites (off by default), which I floated in the Village Pump last November and which went down like a lead balloon. It is partly as a vehicle to allay my frustrations from that experience that I became a late confederate in the quest to delink nearly all day, month and year dates. We share the same overarching desire to cut down on the "sea of blue" in articles. By the way, I have seen Articles that were O.K. more than a year ago but a terrible mess more recently, not just in formatting and appearance but also in NPOV, Due Weight, Reliability of Sources, and Verifiability. Perhaps on average WP articles get better, but not a few get worse.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 03:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
They don't work for me. -- Kendrick7 talk 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the Later Life section discusses events of 2009-03-17 in the past tense. Which is correct? The past tense or the 2009-03-17 date? 204.210.242.157 ( talk) 16:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I decided to come back and have a quick look at this article, however I stopped reading after the second "sentence": Born in Italy, he travelled at the age of eight (8) on his own in 1906. Without a reference, it's hard to know to what this refers (let alone be able to fix it). I am surprised to see this in a FA. Is this just article rot, or has the FA process collapsed? (The problem was introduced with this edit.) P.S. appending the "(8)" is horrible. HWV258 . 21:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The whole article needs a sift through. For example: "Born in Italy, he travelled at the age of eight (8) on his own in 1906." is just weird.
"Ponticelli was the oldest living man of Italian birth and the oldest man living in France"—after what year?
There's chain linking (Sarkozy and French President?) and repeat linking (how many times WW1?).
MOS issues: for example, a quotation is rendered entirely in italics. Tony (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lazare Ponticelli. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)