Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louvre/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:26, 26 May 2008.

Louvre
Self-nom

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it has gone endured much work from a number of editors, including myself. The article is now a comprehensive overlook of the museum's history and collection. I look forward to reading your comments! Lazulilasher (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Current ref 1 "Sandler Linda "Louvre's 8.3 million visitors..." lacks a publisher
 * What makes http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/louvre/index.htm a reliable site?
 * Likewise http://www.dexigner.com/architecture/news-g5389.html?
 * Otherwise, sources look good. Links worked according to the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to Ealdgyth: Thanks for checking the refs. Comment #1 now has publisher added (Bloomberg):, Comment #2 was removed as was the sentence as I didn't feel it necessary to the article, and Comment #3 was resourced to a book: Lazulilasher (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The map under the Location and access section overlaps the text of the Notable works section in my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.14/Windows XP). Budding Journalist 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Same issue, Firefox on Mac OS Leopard. Otherwise I think it's good, flow and style work for clarity and MOS. Good work TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to BuddingJournalist and TravellingCari: Darn...same issue on my computer, also...I thought it was only me and my Commodore 64 (joke). Anyway, I am working on it now and will post when fixed. I made the map, so I am loathe to remove...but, well...it might have to go... Lazulilasher (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed (see below) Lazulilasher (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think Template:Clear might work on the map problem. I am still looking the latest version of the article over, but note that images should all be set to thumb so reader preferences on size take over (with the exception of infoboxes, maps, and panoramas - can also use thumb and "upright" for vertical images to make them not as wide). See WP:MOS. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Ruhrfisch That

template worked. Also, alternated right/left alignment. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Map seems to be fixed on my browser! Budding Journalist 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Same here, was just about to say that here. Struck that portion of my comment. I'm going to have a more detailed read-through later but it's all looking very good. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also note that I would never have figured that out about the

template. So thanks for that. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments. I am only familiar with the Louvre during the sixteenth and early seventeenth century, so my comments concentrate on that period. It seems to me far too skimpily passed over.


 * I feel that the unique work of Lescot and Goujon needs to be given its due. French Renaissance architecture of this period is a remarkable and special thing, mixing elements of classicism and mannerism in a new way. Acording to Anthony Blunt, "it is possible to talk of Lescot's style as a form of French classicism, having its own principles and its own harmony". And according to Ivan Cloulas, Goujon created "an art of immense sophistication and refinement"; he says of Goujon's sculptural friezes and ornamentation: "The most perfect conception in all of French architecture, celebrated from the moment of its completion, this façade made ingenious use of compositions reminiscent of those devised by Michelangelo for the Sistine ceiling".


 * No mention is made of the keep which Francis I removed.


 * No mention is made of Lescot's ceiling for Henry II's chamber, carved by Scibec de Carpi, which still survives. In Blunt's opinion, it "marks an epoch in French interior decoration".


 * There should, I think, be a mention of the interior decoration of Lescot's new wing, which was highly original, particularly the four caryatids of Goujon, which were monumental and unprecedented in France.


 * Catherine de' Medici should, I believe, be credited with the decision to join the Louvre to the Tuileries with a long gallery (as early as 1576), though Lescot probably came up with the "grand design" even earlier. Henry IV was merely the final carrier out. The ground floor of the first part of this section, the Petite Galerie, was completed in Catherine's lifetime.


 * The article says that Henry IV built the Grande Galerie in 1594, but I find this hard to believe. After all, he entered Paris for the first time in his reign in March of that year. It would be more accurate to say that Henry began work on the linking gallery in that year. David Buisseret suggests that the work was completed between 1596 and 1606 (Tobie Matthew reported in 1605 that the gallery was "within forty paces of completion"; and it is recorded that you could pass from the Louvre to the Tuileries through the gallery by 1606). Henry IV can be credited with the idea of building the northern link between the two palaces, though he didn't carry this out himself. qp10qp (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Qp10qp: Thanks for your comments. Well, I was concerned about the length of the article and had some reservations about going to deeply into the history as an article, Palais du Louvre, exists and might be more appropriate for more depth (length of history section was also mentioned in the article's Peer Review). However, I do agree that Catherine de Medici should be mentioned as well as a deeper description of Lescot. I'll leave a message on your talk page after edits are completed. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Qp10qp: Ok, I addressed your comments...I agree, the 16th century does require more weight. Please let me know what you think of the edits (also, note that the diffs aren't the final version--I did go through and copy edit, so if the diffs seem a bit disjointed, please refer to the article):
 * Lescot & Goujon: I fleshed out the section about these two, including mentioning the Salle des Caryatides. Please see here.
 * Scibec de Carpi/Lescot's ceiling: See this diff. I didn't mention that the ceiling has been moved, but I did note the departure from the traditional French style at that time.
 * 'The keep: Noted removal of medieval keep under Francois I here.
 * Catherine de'Medici and the idea to link the two palaces: Noted here.
 * The Grande Galerie: A bit more detail was added and more specific wording was used. My source said that the link was finished by 1610, which gives the possibility that it was done earlier.
 * Ok, I hope this makes the section a bit more clear. As always, much appreciation for the comments and read-through. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment, and I suspect for all this round, as I think the article needs a lot of work. The section on the building is actually longer than the supposed "main article", Palais du Louvre (though that is better in parts), but neither do such an important and complex building anything like justice. The material on the collections has far too much emphasis on when and how things got there, as opposed to what actually is there. One of the 8 departments, Near Eastern Antiquities, is missing completely. (now added)    There are generally far too many factoids assembled in a rather random fashion: "On 2 December 1851, Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, who had been elected President of the Republic, staged a coup d'état by dissolving the National Assembly and ushering in the Second French Empire. Between 1852 and 1870, the French economy grew and the museum added 20,000 new pieces to its collections and the link to the Tuileries was completed via the Pavillon de Flore." The section on "sculpture" reads, in its entirety: "The sculpture curatorial department contains 'modern' sculpture.[33] The Louvre has been a repository of sculpted material since its time as a palace; however, the first display of medieval, Renaissance, and modern works did not occur until 1824. Initially, the collection was relatively small, with about 100 works and, because of government focus on Versaille, it remained so until 1847 when Léon Laborde was given control of the department. By 1855 there were 388 pieces on display. Initially, the collection was organized under the department of antiquities but was given autonomy in 1871, and in 1986 all works from after 1850 were relocated to the new Musée d'Orsay. As part of the Grand Louvre project, the sculpture department was separated into two exhibition spaces. The French collection is on display in the Richelieu wing, while foreign works are located throughout the Denon wing.[33]"  Yes, but what have they actually got? What does "modern" mean here? And so on. Do we really need to know that in "1847 ... Léon Laborde was given control of the department"?  The whole thing reads much too much like the "History of the Collection" bits museums love to start their guides with, which no one ever reads, moving on to the actual current contents.  Some basic things the article doesn't tell you: 1) The Louvre has by a mile the most important collection of French old master paintings and sculpture in the world; 2) It has hardly any English paintings, and not many Spanish ones (a "modest" collection, as my guide says); 3) the "decorative arts" collection includes arguably the most important collection of Early Medieval objects in the world.  Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Johnbod: Hey there. Thanks for the comments. Well, concerning the departments, my thought-process was that the significant works should be listed together, at the end, as they ended up being rather "list-y" and I thought it more appropriate to have detail about the pieces contained in their respective articles. Perhaps that wasn't the best course of action, but it seemed to be the clearest as there exists also a category of the Louvre's collections. I figured that the department's should contain information about the history of acquisition, history of the department, etc. Regarding the significance of the museum, I avoided out-right writingthat because I wanted that to come through via the text and demonstration of the notable works at the end. Perhaps that didn't happen.
 * The word "modern" means after 1850, as the other works were placed in the D'Orsay, I guess that could be made explicitly clear--although my intention was for "modern" to be implicitly defined by after 1850 as the earlier works were moved to the D'Orsay. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction Oops, I'd meant to say the later works were moved to the D'Orsay and the ancient were in the Greek/Etruscan/Roman department. Anyway, I'm adding Near Eastern, as that should definitely be there.... Lazulilasher (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So "modern" here means after classical antiquity, but before 1850? Should be explained anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And the Palais du Louvre article will, one-day, hopefully be much better...I just thought it the Louvre article more pertinent as a starting point... Lazulilasher (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily object to the list in itself, but the departmental sections should be more relevant summaries. Also, the whole later part of the article, devoted to the collections, is referenced only to the Louvre website, not even one of the Guides like Mignot. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (undent) hi johnbod, thanks for taking the time and replying. I was busy real-world yesterday, so I was away from en-wiki. during that time I've come to agree that the latter sections need some buffing, as well. So, I'm going to the library to fill in the blanks. I think I'll be ble to get this done by the deadline, so I'll notify you when complete. thanks for the comment (lazulilasher via mobile device that does not have tilda key)
 * I like the way it is moving. You mention Pitti Palace below. British Museum, which absurdly failed a 2007 GA nom because not enough external sourcing was used, is worth a look, as more directly comparable in terms of the collections, as is Metropolitan Museum of Art - less good in my view, but far more comprehensive than this.  There is also nothing here on controversies - there must be some. Repatriation of cultural property must be an issue? See National_Gallery%2C_London, Getty_Center. Also a brief bit on organisation - who appoints the Director? Is it the Ministry directly? Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks for the note of encouragement. I think it can get there. Actually, I really like the British Museum article--I thought it was GA--and initially Finetooth and I did draw a bit of the organization from it. I've been thinking about controversy, also. The French wiki has it, so you're right...I'll probably add something to that extent. Btw, I think it's funny that you mention Mignon's book....coincidentally, I'm holding it in my hands at this moment. Ok, back to work, now... Lazulilasher (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note, an article stands on it's own for the purpose of a FA nomination. You noted that the sub article on the building wasn't larger than the material here, but that doesn't affect this FAC. The quality of the section in this article on the building does, but per WP:SS the material in this article should be relatively short since this article has to cover a lot of material. - Taxman Talk 17:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose article has various problems from simple to fix to rather fundamental
 * "Third Republic to present" and "Modern developments" overlap more fundamentally than just "to present" covering modern developments. The section on the "Axe historique" which is poorly captioned for the image and not well explained seems to end with the mention of the Paris Commune at the very beginning of the third Republic--not very modern.  I also tend to think the new offshoot museums should be in a different section.
 * While discussion of the building is well fleshed out the discussion of the art is not. Also, it primarily uses the Louvre website which should generally be avoided at least as being the only source for a paragraph.
 * Little mention of the wings?
 * "Notable works" completely unsourced. This might be a valuable section to use the Louvre website as a reference.
 * --gren グレン 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Grenavitar: Ok, thanks for the comments. Much was noted above, so I am in the process of addressing it (most particularly the emphasis on museum holdings) and I think I can get it too a much higher level before this closes. On another note, regarding the sourcing of the notable works, I was thinking that this should perhaps be broken off as a list, as it is rather unwieldly. As for sourcing, does it need to be sourced as it is mainly a list of well-known pieces? I'll notify you when edits are completed on the other issues. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another reply: We've been using Palazzo Pitti (FA) as our model article, and that article has the notable works in a separate list. We've discussed doing the same, but my feeling was that the article was not long enough to justify the move. However, I just moved the list into a separate article, as the additions to the department section are making the current article too long. I think it is much cleaner. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The department sections have been redressed and the issues above have been addressed, hopefully the article looks good now. As always, I await feedback :) Lazulilasher (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Weird writing. By that I mean opaque, unexplained, difficult to read prose. And I've only got to the end of the second para. Looking through quickly, it seems to fail 1a. But it has promise, and with a good copy-editor or two (not people who are close to the text already), might just be brought up to standard in time.
 * Opening—just a thought: I wonder whether most readers can engage better with hectares (acres) than massive values of sq m and ft? Do we need "the structure's"?
 * "The museum is on the Right Bank, in the neighborhood referred to as the 1st arrondissement and lies between the Seine River and the Rue de Rivoli."—Where would the comma be better placed?
 * The structure was begun—surely it's the construction of the building that began. And I'm confused about whether that first construction was of a fortress or of the building we see now. I suppose I'll work it out if I read on and think carefully. Do I need to hit the link to "Capetian dynasty" or "Philip II" to work it out? "and has been used as a residence." is odd after all of those opaque chronological clues. Then we immediatly have "used as" again.
 * Were the "modern museum standards" those that were set during the Grand Louvre project, or just modern standards that were applied then?
 * "The museum is divided among eight curatorial departments, contains some of the world's most celebrated artworks and displays almost every genre of Western Art. In addition, the collection displays pieces of Egyptian, Oriental, and Islamic origin." I find the two ideas in the first sentence not to fit well with each other (the first one kind of begs the question, don't you think?). And since the second item leads smoothly into the non-Western statement, perhaps they should be joined instead.
 * The singling out of just five or six works here is going to appear POV. I'd stay away from that in the lead. TONY   (talk)  13:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Tony1: Hi Tony, thanks for reading the article and encouraging. Do you, perhaps, have any good referrals to a recommended editor to help prune the prose? I'll address the other points as soon as I get a decent internet connect. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.