Talk:Saint-Louis-du-Louvre

Saint-Louis-du-Louvre has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 10, 2015	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 13, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

France: Paris Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Reformed Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Reformed Christianity portal This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity (assessed as Mid-importance).

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saint-Louis-du-Louvre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 10:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 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):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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:

Here we go. The issues I believe need to be adressed are:

I have placed numerous ^{[citation needed]} tags all over the history section. Most of what you write seems to come from the second source you give. You will need to cite it more than once though to make that clear.
Lemoyne was given the commission by the family of Cardinal Fleury and the tomb remained unfinished at the time of the church's suppression. I am unable to find that last statement in the source you give.
In 1598, Protestant worship had been forbidden in Paris by the Edict of Nantes. In 1685, the Edict of Fontainebleau made non-Catholic services illegal in all of France. The source you give is quite a strange one. I am sure you could find a book writing about the persecution of Protestants in France? Also, and more importantly, your source does not give any info on the Edict of Fontainebleau.
There is the problem that often your sources do not lead to the page they are intended to, and you have to search for the information first. Very complicated. Maybe you can find a way to fix that. Also, with ref 10 I have shown you how you should place refs at every place where they belong.
Even though I am not really capable of understanding French, I am quite certain that ref #11 does not give all the information you give in the last paragraph. Please take care of the ^{[citation needed]} tags there.

I am placing this on hold for ten days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the talk page could do with some Project templates. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no idea why I wrote seven, of course I meant the usual seven days. But well, it's nine days now and nothing has happened, so unfortunatey, I am forced to fail this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not responding in time, I moved houses this week. I saw the ten days listed and delayed my edits given that time frame. Would it still be possible to do the edits tomorrow and finish the process?Djkeddie (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the requested edits. Thank you for your careful review.

The statement, Lemoyne was given the commission by the family of Cardinal Fleury and the tomb remained unfinished at the time of the church's suppression, is referenced from the top of p. 96 in the citation, "He nevertheless did not create the monument, which was later commissioned of Lemoyne by the cardinal's family but was never completed."
I'm not sure how to fix the hyperlinks on google books to land at the correct page. I haven't found a way to do that but will continue to search for one.
I've removed the last sentence, which was properly sourced and added a reference for the choir stalls. The last sentence is sourced in the citation: "Devenue temple protestant en 1801, elle fut démolie en 1811, sauf certaines parties qui disparurent en 1850. La partie occidentale du pavillon Denon recouvre son emplacement."Djkeddie (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Djkeddie: I am sorry, but since I closed the review I cannot open it up again. But if you re-nominate the article I will take over the review and go over it again :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry for the delayed response.Djkeddie (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saint-Louis-du-Louvre/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at it tomorrow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 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):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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:

To get back to the issues raised in the first review:

Google books: this template should help. But I didn't really mean that, I meant the pages around here, where I often need to follow another link to get to what you point to (such as with Paul-Henri Marron in ref #10).
I still have a small problem with ref #11: The source says that the building was demolished in 1811 but that parts remained until 1850, being replaced with the Denon Wing. By clicking through some pages, I found that that is actually is a part of the Louvre Palace. Maybe you can clarify that in the prose, so that it matches better to the source?
You wikilinked Louvre Palace in the lead, but you should link it at the first mention in the content body as well.
The first paragraph of Saint-Louis-du-Louvre should not be without an inline citation.

Again, seven days to take care of the issues. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made appropriate edits. Thanks for the tip on the Google Books template. I haven't found a way to deal with the issue of the l'Oratoire du Louve pages. I still want to use that reference because it provides some unique information. I have added one non-web reference taken from the French Wikipedia page for Marron that is the source of some of that sentence.Djkeddie (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pass now, congratulations :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will however list it under Art and architecture, not World History. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, having another person look at an article is invaluable.Djkeddie (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]