Wikipedia:Peer review/Palais Rohan, Strasbourg/archive1

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have started rewriting this article in October 2015, working from French language sources (my mothertongue). I think that I have now brought it to a very decent, almost GA-like status. Since I am not a native speaker, I would like someone without any previous knowledge of the building to review my work before I may try and nominate it as a good article candidate.

Thanks, Edelseider (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

LynwoodF
I was asked by one of the principal authors, who is not a native English-speaker, to review the wording of the article, in order to ensure that the English is idiomatic. I have done this and made a number of minor changes. I am now going on to look at the article from the point of view of content. I am familiar with the building, having lived near it for a while, but had only a sketchy knowledge of its history. However, the contents of the article are consistent with what I already knew.


 * The lead section is longer than some, but it summarizes the history of the building and the uses to which it has been put, without going into excessive detail.
 * The main body of the article is divided into logical sections and a great deal more detail is included in these.
 * The definite article is used in two of the section headings, and while this is generally frowned upon, its use seems natural in both contexts and I am not prepared to condemn it. I am reminded of an old adage: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise."
 * There are a number of images and these are mostly grouped into small galleries in the relevant sections. Given the specialist nature of the images, this seems to me to be the sensible way to handle them.
 * The sources seem appropriate, but are largely in French. However, I am not aware of any English-language source which has this amount of detail. The authors of the article have perhaps done the English-speaking community a service by extracting and translating the detailed information.
 * All the links appear to be in working order at the date of this comment. LynwoodF (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
This is a very fine piece of work, a pleasure to read and highly instructive. The proportions are apt, the sourcing is wide and evidently authoritative. All I can offer are a few tiny drafting points: Those are my few gleanings. This is an excellent article, and I hope to see it promoted to GA or FA in due course. –  Tim riley  talk    16:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Spelling: English or American? At present we have BrE "favourable" and "splendour" alongside AmE "center" and "realized" (the latter is technically BrE as well as AmE, but "realised" is much more usual).
 * Empress Joséphine – it seems anomalous to give Josephine her aigu while denying Napoléon his. Common English usage? Perhaps, though a quick rummage in the archives shows that The Times has never given her the acute accent.
 * "the right wing was the used as the stable" – needs tweaking: either "the right wing was the stable" or "the right wing was used as the stable" – not sure which you intended.
 * "who later offered it to the Marquis of Cinq-Mars" – did Cinq-Mars accept it? If so, I'd write "gave" or "presented" rather than "offered".
 * "the main foci" – according to Fowler, "The pl. of the noun in general use is focuses, and in scientific use most often foci" (the latter pronounced with a soft "s" it seems). I'd follow Fowler's lead and go for the everyday "focuses".

Quick comments by Johnbod
I've raised one query on the talk page. Generally seems GA standard, but maybe not FA yet; the referencing would need work for one thing, as I doubt all are WP:RS. I'd move some images out of the mini-galleries to beside the text. The section on the "structure" says next to nothing about the architecture and should be improved. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)