Talk:Amber Room/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 19:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vinther, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Jonas Vinther, I have completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article and I assess that it easily meets all the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few comments and questions that must be addressed prior to its passage to Good Article status. Thank you again for your extraordinary efforts in completing this article! -- Caponer (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
An architecture or design section is required, as this is a significant example of baroque architectural design.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Pending agreement between editors regarding the article's condition at review.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the article. The lede defines the room, establishes context for the room, explains why the room is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the room.
The image of the reconstructed Amber Room with amber panels and gold leafs is released into the public domain and is therefore free to use.
Consider adding a comma or semi-colon between the Russian and German translations of the Amber Room's name.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider rewriting as "Created in the 18th century in Prussia, the room disappeared during World War II and was recreated in 2003."

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first usage of Prussia in the lede should be wiki-linked, de-link the second mention of Prussia.
In the second paragraph, add a comma after "In Russia."

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fix typo to "inaugurated at the Catherine Palace near St. Petersburg" in the last sentence of the lede. De-link St. Petersburg as it is linked above in the lede.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the lede is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

History

The image of the corner section of the reconstructed Amber Room is released into the public domain and is therefore eligible for usage here.
Berlin City Palace should be named as such consistently throughout the next, rather than as Berlin Castle.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite as "The Amber Room did not, however, remain at Berlin City Palace for long. Peter the Great of Russia admired it during a visit and in 1716, King Friedrich I's son Friedrich Wilhelm I presented the room to Peter as a gift, which forged a Russo-Prussian alliance against Sweden."

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite as "The room took over ten years to construct" in the final sentence of the Creation subsection.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image of an angel statue featured on the wall of the Amber Room was released into the public domain and is therefore eligible to use here.
In the World War II subsection, the amber became brittle.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would "cultural goods of priority" work better in the Last days in Königsberg subsection?
Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Reconstruction

The image of the amber room in this section has been released into the public release, and is therefore permissible for use here.
In the first sentence, add a comma after "In 1979."

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph, if these are American dollars, the amount should be rewritten $3.5 million.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De-link East Prussia as it was already wiki-linked above in the article's main prose.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Disappearance and mysteries

The image of Königsberg Castle, 1925 was released into the public domain and is free to use in this article.
The image of the ruins of the castle, 1950s was released into the public domain and is also free to use here.
Inline citations are needed in the fourth paragraph of this section.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, it is suggested that inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs, and not within. But of course, this is not a deal breaker, and is merely a suggestion.

Tweaked. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation needs an inline citation.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following paragraph only requires the inline citation to be located at the end of the paragraph.

Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Architecture

There needs to be a section devoted exclusively to the details of the room's architecture and design, including chandelier types, carvings, statuary, etc.

Caponer, I have edited accordingly all your comments above. Regarding this new comment, I'd say the rooms architecture and design is described and also shown with pictures very well. It's not in a section for itself, but in bits and pieces. Would this be okay, considering I have fixed everything outlined in your initial review? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votum separatum

While no doubt formally the article meets the GA standards, it is time to actually improve the article:

Review massive deletions by the nominee under the not-so-modest edit summary "MASSIVELY improved the article!"
Add new content; a number of major issues is missing.

Still, I'd like to join Caponer in his congrats for the significant effort in copyediting of this article. I would also remind that the article is a joint effort of numerous contributors, who added this or that until the article became ripe to be picked by a copyeditor. Still, it is sad to notice that this article was thoroughly neglected during recent years, together with most of wikipedia. -M.Altenmann >t 03:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is overburdened with detail. E.g., the history of its design must be moved into the corresponding section. -M.Altenmann >t 03:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Its history is mismatched in lede and in body. The references are not double-checked. I see some discrepancies. I am starting to get an idea that nominating it for GA is premature. -M.Altenmann >t 04:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-language sources are completely ignored. While this is no a problem (this is English-language wikipedia after all), still they have much more detail than "second-hand" non-Russian non-German sources. In this respect, reference to Scotland on Sunday is especially... er... amusing, speaking of sloppiness in finding good references. -M.Altenmann >t 04:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ru: text contains a wealth of detail. -M.Altenmann >t 04:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altenmann, I thank you for adding the original 1931 photo to the article, but is unable to comprehend why you bring up all these other issues. Firstly, there is no doubt that my edits significantly improved this article, absolutely. The article was a literal mess before I started editing it! The GA-reviewer himself called my work on this article "extraordinary efforts". Secondly, I have not removed any significant or important content from the article which was in it before I started editing it; I have simply reformulated it and shorten unnecessary long sentences and paragraphs, making the article more pleasant and easy to read. Thirdly, I don't speak or read Russian, so I have only included English and German sources. I don't see any problem with Russian or any other non-English sources for that matter, but used the sources in my reach. Lastly, as you said yourself, this article no doubt meets the GA-standards, but I plan on asking for a A-Class review and also open a peer review, so all your comments for improvements can be listed there instead of here. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vinther and Altenmann, I thank you both for your attention to this article, and for your valued contributions to it. Because an article must be stable and free of all disagreements prior to passage, I am going to keep this article "on hold" pending your joint concurrence on the version of the article that is currently up for review. If a compromise cannot be reached, I will decline passage of the article until one can be attained. Altenmann, please add content and citations from some of the German and Russian language sources, as much as translation tools will allow you to. Jonas, thank you for making the above updates. Because this room is a significant piece of architecture, I would find it odd to not have an architecture or design section dedicated solely to its baroque carvings, chandeliers, etc. I trust Altenmann could assist in crafting such a paragraph. -- Caponer (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found an excellent source here regarding The Amber Room's architecture. I will do my best in creating an "Architecture" section my sandbox and present it here when I'm done to hear your opinions. I trust that a collaboration between me and Altenmann on this section would mean the end of any disagreements. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vinther, I look forward to seeing the final result. Thanks for all your diligence and patience throughout this review process! -- Caponer (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer, would you say that the information I have placed in the new section is too little? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Caponer:I don't have any disagreements with Jonas Vinther. As I said, it is clearly GA now. I am sure you are aware that there is always room for improvement, and the work never stops. I merely listed my observations:

From my long experience every copyeditor undertaking major rewriting omits some details they think unimportant. In this particular case, (forgetting lesser detail) Jonas removed a whole section about the influence of the Amber Room on culture. Of course, this section must follow WP:TRIVIA, but there are several notable comments.
I fail to see why request for adding new content must be a show-stopper: it is a never-ending quest, and I did not formulate my request as denial of GA status.

As for architecture request, well, it has been plain room (rooms); nothing special architecturally (the sources I know pay no much attention to it); the only prominent elements are decorations.

Of course, I will expand the article in my spare time, but again, if my comments somehow mess with GA process, then ~~fuck GA process~~ it clearly has drawbacks and you must follow common sense. -M.Altenmann >t 16:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altenmann, I agree; the rooms architectural details are hard to expand into a full section when it's just plain rooms. Even so, the St. Petersburg reference had some interesting info on that, and I did my best to formulate it into the newest section added. I just left a message for the GA-reviewer if he is fine with the length of it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altenmann and Jonas Vinther, you all have done a fantastic job of adding more content and streamlining the narrative of this article. In the "Creation" subsection, could there be a mention of when the Amber Room was actually installed in Russia. It should be mentioned in chronological order that the Amber Room was installed at the Catherine Palace of Tsarskoye Selo near Saint Petersburg, since that content is also highlighted in the lede. I stand by the request for a design or architecture paragraph. I'm sure someone out there has quantified the number of amber panels, etc. If not, I feel what you have now suffices and thank you for crafting that section. I used Google Translate to conduct a cursory translation of the German Wikipedia article and it looks like there are more facts that could be added to this, like the role of Empress Elisabeth in selecting the location of the room's installation. I would conduct a literature review to support some of the facts in that article, and add that content here. I am very confident that this article is close to passing, but I want to ensure it is as comprehensive as possible before doing so. Great work all! P.S. Also please ensure that all inline citations are placed in numerical order. -- Caponer (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer, I have added more info on the quantified number of amber panels in the Architecture section, the mention of when the Amber Room was actually installed in Russia and also the role of Empress Elisabeth, all of which is now sourced. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vinther, your additions look incredible. At first glance, citations still need to be placed in numerical order and should be placed at the end of a sentence rather than in the middle. I'll review soon, but upon first look, it looks about ready to proceed to GA status. Great job sir! -- Caponer (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, and thank you for your thorough review. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vinther, I've completed a cursory copyedit of the article, and while I assess it to have been greatly improved by your recent additions and edits, I find that the article still requires a little more research and copyediting. Also, some of the sources may not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, like in the case of About.com and AskMen. I would like to keep this article review on hold for a little longer while you continue to research for additional sources. This is one of the most famous rooms in architectural history, so I want to see the article reach Good Article status, but I want it to be worthy of the room it illustrates and represents. I would also nominate this article for further review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests so that it can receive a more thorough copyedit. Please continue to research for other sources, and consult with Wikipedia:Translation regarding translations of German and Russian sources, which are critical to making this a truly comprehensive article. As I stated, let's keep this on hold and continue to improve the article further. -- Caponer (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer, thank you for all your hard work; the article looks much better. However, I don't see what's wrong about using sources like About.com? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vinther, the About.com source can remain, but some of the site's content has been contested on Wikipedia before. I just want to make sure we put forward an indisputable article that can be a contender for a FA, which I know it can be because of your excellent contributions! Requests for translations and assistance from Russian and German-speaking Wikipedians may hold the key to this article's GAR completion. -- Caponer (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer, I would really appreciate if About.com could stay, as it's one of the most used sources and contain such a wealth of info on the Amber Room. I plan on opening a peer review after the article has reached GA-status with the purpose of getting the article to FA-status, so I would also only want the best sources, but don't see any problems with About.com. The Daily Mail has also been criticized before by the community, but is still abundantly used on Wikipedia—even on GA-articles. I will do my best in getting some help with translating the Russian sources (I speak German myself) and get back to you ASAP. Thanks again. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer, in accordance with your latest comments and by having this source translated from Russian to English, I have made the final edits. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Vinther, while the article now meets the criteria for Good Article status, I still highly recommend that this article be nominated for a full copyedit by the GOCE. Great job on this article, and please continue to research and add details as your further research uncovers more information. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer, It's an excellent suggestion I intend to do. I also plan on requesting a A-Class and peer review as well. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]