Wikipedia:Peer review/Louvre/archive1

Louvre

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I and other editors have been working on bringing this article up to FA standards. Much of the content has been expanded, but we are hoping to garner other editor's input. Specifically, do you think the content level is comprehensive without going into too much detail? Our "style guide" has been Palazzo Pitti, an FA.

Also, all general suggestions are welcome.

As always, dearest thanks for taking a look and commenting!

Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally, an excellent article.

Personally I find the language used in the "history" part to be too dry, and that part goes on for too long...I wanted to get to the art - the main feature of the museum. But I'm not sure how things could be arranged better.
 * I am going to work on shortening this section before I throw it to FAC. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are excellent.

I'm not sure about the pic in the info box though, which, although a fine picture, is really showing the pyramid rather than the Louvre - so perhaps not appropriate?
 * It has been changed...and I hope you like it, because I took it :) Lazulilasher (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the year it was built should be in the lead. I don't know what those periods of reign mean in real terms, so one or two years would help.
 * I agree, done.

The last sentence in the lead, "The collection is divided among eight curatorial departments.", looks out of place, as it's not related to the rest of that para. Maybe it could be deleted, or moved to the top of the 'departments' part.

Chzz (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall quite well done. Here are my nit-picks, hope they help: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the last paragraph in the lead could be something like The museum collection is divided among eight curatorial departments and houses some of the world's most famous works of art, such as Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, The Virgin and Child with St. Anne, and Madonna of the Rocks; Jacques Louis David's Oath of the Horatii; Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People; and Alexandros of Antioch's Venus de Milo.
 * Would it make sense to start the History section with the building and date (the three sentences  Regardless, a [A] fortress was built ... foundation of the southeast corner.[5], then have the murky name, then Charles V and additions?
 * Missing word: Regardless, a fortress was built under Philip Augustus from 1190 to 1202 to defend Paris [against?] foreign attacks.[8][9]
 * Since there are multiple artworks moving around through the article, should this be plural (treasures): Despite this, Saint-Yvenne again criticized what he called the neglect of much of France's artistic treasure,...
 * Would it make more sense to have the Axe historique material in the preceding section - as it is we go to 1935, then back to 1871 and the Commune, then to 1989 and the Pyramid, then the present and near future with Lens.
 * Problem sentence: Among the Louvre's sculptures are the Winged Victory of Samothrace and the Venus de Milo.[25][15][5] sculpture is linked here for the second time in two sentences (avoid overlinking), I would consider the WInged Victory at least to be both an archeological find and a sculpture (perhaps the Venus de Milo too), and refs should be in numerical order 5, 15, 25.
 * Should the date here be a range? The Louvre contains a large collection of art from the Nile civilizations, dating from around 4000 BCE.
 * Should Louvre Abu Dhabi be with Louvre Lens? Both are modern expansions into new museums?
 * I prefer list-y things at the end (so Notable works would come after Location and access) but if the Pitti Palace model is organized this way, fine. I also think Notable works might benefit from an image or two.
 * What is the organization of the Notable works? Perhaps it could be organized by curatorial department?
 * Working on it..... :) Lazulilasher (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and done! The notable works have been organized first by medium, then alphabetically by name. It's a bit more clear, although, I must say, not as aesthetically pleasing as the original IMO hehe Lazulilasher (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)