Talk:Napoleonic looting of art

Removing NPOV and Refimprove tags
Since this article was approved through AFC, I have gone through citing and editing the article to correspond to a number of academic articles and books. At this point, I have rewritten, deleted, or cited everything I think could be considered questionable. I think it makes sense to take off the two tags now, but some editors might still be skeptical of the article's general state (see DYK nomination above, perhaps). If anyone would like to re-add the warning templates, please write here to explain what issues remain. (Pinging since they added the refimprove template.) Thanks all! — Wingedserif (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is off the subject, but did you mean to remove your unsigned, and unanswered, 23:23, 29 January 2021 post with this last edit? Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did! Sorry, that should have been in the edit summary. In my last go-round, there were more references to resistance from collections/nations, so I thought it wasn't an issue in the article anymore. — Wingedserif (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume the sentences without a reference at the end of paragraphs are included under the subsequent reference, right? Shotgunscoop (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , in most cases, yes. I tried to make clear when a source only covered part of a sentence, like a single clause for example. In some cases, like the graf about conservation/mural removals, the information came from a single source, so I thought citing every sentence would be overkill.
 * In other cases, the citation either "covers" the whole paragraph (eg, "In April 1797, the French removed...") or the fact was mentioned in multiple sources and I thought it was OK to do w/out a citation there. For example, the Sardegna section only cites the Lee book, but the second sentence of the paragraph came from my reading of the Wescher book.
 * I thought this was OK to do because, by my understanding of WP:V, information in articles needs to be verifiable but that doesn't necessarily mean that every claim needs an in-article citation (unless it's surprising/hard to believe/challenged in some way). — Wingedserif (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, just wanted to make sure :) Shotgunscoop (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting off "List of artworks taken"?
I've started to go through and cite more of the list elements, but I'm also mindful of the fact that 1. the article itself is already very long and the space saved would allow it to include other regions that aren't covered yet w/out violating WP:SIZE, 2. the list is very long but still missing many representative works from artists like Hans Memling, Anthony van Dyck, etc. What do other editors think? — Wingedserif (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * After support from a PR editor, ✅ — Wingedserif (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Deceptive title
As the looting began no later than 1794 (five years before Napoleon came to power), this isn't just a Napoleonic looting but a more general French army looting. 2600:1702:6D0:5160:38C5:DD9E:4569:7605 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the adjective most often used to describe this long-term looting in sources. Do you have sources that suggest another appropriate name? "French army looting" is too generic to be helpful here. — Wingedserif (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Northern Europe?
The section on Northern Europe only covers Germany and Austria, countries that are not usually referred to as Northern European. Therefore, I suggest to change the title of the section to "Germany and Austria".--Mschiffler (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)