Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gardens of Versailles/archive2

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 00:07, 17 May 2008.

Gardens of Versailles

previous nomination withdrawn

Note: nominated by user:elighthart

Oppose. This article needs a great deal of work to meet the Featured Article criteria. There are almost no inline citations in the article, and much of the article is in list format rather than prose. Karanacs (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose, basic attention to FA criteria has not been paid. A lot of work has obviously been done on the article, but suggest working with an experience FA writer to bring it up to standards. --Laser brain (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fails WP:LEAD, WP:V, WP:FN etc. Now let's make sure we don't fall foul of WP:BITE :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French Wikipedia: Jardins de Versailles has material that doesn't appear here. There is a rich bibliography on this subject to be tapped. --Wetman (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, I see that user:elighthart is well aware of the other material as they have ambitiously nominated simultaneously as a French FAC. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - *Sigh* This was peer reviewed by me, and I left a long list of things to do at the PR page, but the editor just ignored it all...and now it pops up on FAC. What a waste of time and effort. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Gardens of Versailles/archive1, then get it peer reviewed again, then get it on WP:GA, and then come back here. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a waste of time. You left a great, detailed review and anyone wishing to improve the article can use that to do so. Detailed reviews are very valuable. It's not your fault someone jumped the gun and nominated here. - Taxman ^Talk 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: first three images in the article have problems (as articulated below). I've not done a full check in light of the serious and, frankly, obvious other issues already indicated.
- Image:Vue à vol d’oiseau des jardins de Versailles.jpg - source links directly to the image (not a page on which it is used). How can we verify copyright status? If author is anonymous, why is PD being claimed based on the life of the author?
- Image:Versailles Plan Jean Delagrive.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
- Image:Louis XIV devant la grotte de Thétys à Versailles.jpg also needs a verifiable source and is also claiming a "life of author" PD status for an anonymous author. How can we verify this is indeed from 1684 and not contemporary? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Introduction is too short. Too many images which are relevant but clutter up the page, I'm not sure how we deal with articles discussing so many works of art but it doesn't look right to me. Some images are left-aligned under headings. "Esthetic" is misspelled. But most importantly.... lack of citations and an apparent dis-interest in taking advantage of PR which could've easily fixed these problems. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.