Talk:French Renaissance architecture

Lescot wing and 2nd Empire
I would question that the Lescot wing is a good example of French Renaissance architecture. its Mannerists motifs are leaning more towards the forthcoming classicism than the retrospective French renaissance. On another note, I am surprised to see that both Napoleon III style and Second Empire architecture are listed as further reading.Last time I looked, the former was a redirect to the latter. There is also, the slightly more informative, Second Empire architecture in Europe. I think there needs to be some merging here, or there are going to be a lot of very confused people. especially as all three pages exemplify the Palais Garnier. Thoughts please? Giano   (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This proliferation of low-quality stubs on the same topic is indeed confusing. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both for your comments; it's nice to know that someone actually reads these articles.

As to the additional links, you're absolutely right; most had nothing at all to do with the topic. I've taken those out. More relevant ones could be added.

As to the Lescot Wing (or at least the portion of it facing the courtyard) the sources I'm using place him and it in the Renaissance. Robert Ducher in "Caractéristique des Styles" uses it as the main illustration of the second French Renaissance, along with Ancy-Le-France and the Chateau d'Ecouen. The Architecture du Patrimoine Francais also puts Lescot as an example of the peak of the French Renaissance. The Texier book cited features his work as an example of the Italian taste and the French Renaissance. Goujon is generally described as a Renaissance sculptor, the best of them. Lescot's work may also have characteristics of other styles, and can be seen as a foretaste of classicism, but his work certainly seems to me to be part of the French Renaissance. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

reassess stub status?
this article doesn't seem to be a stub anymore after considerable work was done, perhaps the status of the article should be reassessed. If this isn't the place to put this then could someone point me to the right place? Nicolol747 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - I'm confident it isn't a stub and have evaluated as C-class. KJP1 (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The Best?
This page has been on my watchlist for a long time and a recent spate of edits attracted my attention. I have just spent an absorbing 20 minutes reading and re-reading it. I know SiefkinDR is largely responsible for it, but there’s also been some very worthy copy editing etc. In my opinion, it is the very best page on Wikipedia. It comprehensive, easy to understand and quite faultless. In short, it’s perfection. Giano   (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)