Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palais Rohan, Strasbourg/archive1

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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2017 [1].

---

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg

Nominator(s): Edelseider (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the former residence of the prince-bishops of Strasbourg and current seat of three museums. It is the most famous and most ornate 18th-century palace of Strasbourg and one of the main tourist attractions of the city. It also is a place with a most colourful history. I expanded the article quite a bit since it was made a GA and I think it has now reached the right dimensions and covers every aspect in enough detail without being overloaded with details. I have of course provided as many different valuable sources as possible. Edelseider (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Since France does not have freedom of panorama, photos of 3D works will need explicit tags for the work itself as well as the photo
• File:Strasbourg,_Palais_Rohan,_tapisserie_dans_la_bibliothèque_(4).JPG: what is the copyright status of this tapestry?
• File:Strasbourg,_Palais_Rohan,_nature_morte_n°1_de_la_salle_du_Synode.JPG: what is the copyright status of this painting? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The tapestry is from the first half of the 17th-century (author died more than 300 years ago) and the painting is by Jean-Baptiste Oudry (died 1755), so these works are in the public domain under every aspect. --Edelseider (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I addressed that by adding the appropriate tag, though, and I hope there will be some more reviewing done soon. Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: FoP only applies to objects not inside buildings. Since the two images you have listed are clearly inside a building, FoP rules does not apply anyhow no matter if there is FoP in France or not. You comment is not irrelevant but has nothing to do with FoP. cheers, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 18:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amada44: Actually, FoP in some countries applies to works inside buildings so long as those are "premises open to the public" - this is true in the UK, for example. That being said, the two works I specifically mentioned above are separate points from that dealing with FoP or lack thereof, and are 2D works. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: -and are 2D works- that is correct so there was no point in mentioning it? Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Er, what? The 3D works needed tags; those two 2D works also needed tags. That's the point of the list above. The point of this conversation originally was to clarify a misunderstanding, but now we can move on. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

They have been tagged. Can we move on? What about reviewing the text? --Edelseider (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the 3D works have been tagged yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: But they have been, e. g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrasbourg%2C_Palais_Rohan%2C_grand_cabinet_17%C3%A8me_si%C3%A8cle_%282%29.JPG&type=revision&diff=233630033&oldid=224812939. What sort of tag are you expecting? --Edelseider (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

First, that needs to happen for all 3D works, including architectural. Second, some of the works have been restored - was the restoration work sufficient to garner a new copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand you. The architectural elements are integral parts of the building and the building is from 1742, it could hardly be more public domain. Did you even read the article? I'm going to tag every single file but allow me to say that I find that insistence on marking centuries-old objects with tags and more tags and even more tags a bit fussy. Are you going to review the text as well, yes or no? --Edelseider (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely. This is just an image review, as the header says. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

He could follow up with a text review, though (ideally). --Edelseider (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Coord note: Edelseider, last things first -- Nikki is female. She is also one of our most experienced image and source reviewers, and I suggest you adopt a more collegial approach to dealing with her comments or those of any other reviewer. Nikki is a volunteer like the rest of us and under no obligation to review more of the article than she chooses to. Her image reviews alone are vital to the FAC process, because if a nomination does not satisfy WP image licensing standards then it won't be promoted to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: - I am trying to be collegial, which is not always easy, as you will admit. So I am - quite collegially - asked about the public domain status of a building that is in the public domain and about the copyright status of works whose authors are dead for centuries. I thought it wouldn't take long to deal collegially with these simple questions but I was proven wrong. I collegially suggest that @Nikkimaria: removes all the pictures from the article that she still has doubts about. That would settle the matter at long last. Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: As for "Nikki is a volunteer like the rest of us", you couldn't have said it more rightly. Thus I am a volunteer like the rest of you to provide Wikipedia with quality content, which should be judged on its qualities and on its content.--Edelseider (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright status and the correct signaling of this status is an important aspect of article quality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Linking is an issue. In general, we should not have adjacent words or phrases linked to different targets, and we should only link to the most specific target. For example, from the first sentence, "Strasbourg, Bas-Rhin, France" has three separate links. If a reader needed further information on the location, he or she should be directed to the city article. If that's not informative enough, he or she can navigate from the city to the department or country articles as appropriate. Another example is "Cardinal Armand Gaston Maximilien de Rohan, Bishop of Strasbourg", linking to each of the two titles as well as the biography. In this case, I'd suggest that we only need the link to the biography article, because if a reader needed further information from there, well, he or she can navigate to those other articles. In short: provide the most value to the reader to avoid making them guess what link will give them the most information. Imzadi 1979 → 18:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Very good,  Done. --Edelseider (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV

• Comment. Hi Edelseider, I'm enjoying reading this. I was wondering about the layout. It looks good on the mobile app, but very few readers are accessing it that way. More are using the mobile web, and most are viewing it on desktop. On desktop, with the window width I normally use, your "interior views" section has three images on the top line, six on the second, and one on the third. And the "y" in "18th-century tiled stove" is on the next line: "18th-centur ...y tiled". On the mobile view, the article looks better (larger font size, for one thing), and the images in that section are on two lines (four on top, six on the second), but the text is still split: "18th-centu ...ry pedal"
  Placing the images in a gallery also means you have a bit of a "wall of text" situation, which is hard to read with the smaller desktop font size. If you want to keep them in the gallery, perhaps introduce some extra paragraph breaks. The paragraph beginning "The year 1871" is 21 lines long on my screen. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it,  Done and thank you! --Edelseider (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That looks better, thank you (the gallery and the paragraph break). You might want to do the same with the "external views" gallery. And there may be other paragraphs that could use a break. "Among the works of art on view" is another long one. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done – I hope it looks even better now! :) Edelseider (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That gallery now has three on top and two on the second line, at every width I've tried except very narrow, so lots of white space. Perhaps try five like the other one? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I just tried five and that doesn't work either. Your way looked better. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I added some pictures (there are hundreds of them on Commons) so it is now 4+4. --Edelseider (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That looks good at most of the widths I tried. There's white space at very wide, but it can't be helped. I wish Wikimedia would introduce a fixed width (and columns). Anyway, thank you for those changes. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Question about capitals in this sentence:

"The Palais Rohan in Strasbourg was built on the site of the former residence of the bishop, the "Bishop's demesne" (German: Bischöflicher Fronhof, shortened to Bischofshof, "Bishop's court"),[7] also known as "Bishop's palace" (German: Bischöfliche Pfalz),[8] which is recorded since at least 1262.[9]"

Are "Bishop's demesne" and "Bishop's court" proper nouns (names)? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you mean – it could be read as "the court of Mr. Bishop" instead of "the court of the bishop". That is the kind of thing I do not spontaneously see, because I am not a native speaker of English. So yes, capitalizing is wrong (although the Germans do it all the time). --Edelseider (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I wasn't thinking of Mr. Bishop, but whether the phrase "Bishop's demesne" is a name. I'll take it that it isn't. By the way, if I make copy-edits you don't like, please revert; no explanation needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Citation format: I see you've repeated the full citation several times, e.g. Martin, Étienne (2012). Le Palais Rohan. p. 94. ISBN 978-2-35125-098-3 There's no rule against doing this (you can choose whichever citation format you prefer within reason), but it isn't standard practice.
  You might consider instead using a long cite on first mention, and short thereafter, e.g. Martin (2012), p. 94. You can do this with and without citation templates; if you use templates, you can link between the long and the short, but I never do that myself, so I can't offer advice on that score. Or you can use all short cites as inline references (whatever you want to call it, e.g. Notes), followed by a list of the full citations in a separate section (e.g. References). Those can be linked too using templates, although it isn't necessary. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done, see here. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Edelseider, that's fine if you want to do it that way. But it isn't standard to keep repeating the first name. The usual thing is variations of Smith 2017, p. 1; Smith (2017), 1; Smith, Name of Book, p. 1; and so on. But it's your decision. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Caps and italics: you should decide on style and formatting (including for references), then make it consistent. For example, you've written Kunstmuseum der Stadt Strassburg (italics), Musée des Beaux-Arts (no italics, caps), Musée des beaux-arts (no italics, no caps), and Musée des arts décoratifs (no italics, no caps). I can't remember what the MoS recommends, but you should look that up, and either follow it or choose another style guide to follow, but definitely make it consistent. Most FAC reviewers will want you to follow the MoS, so it's best to do that unless there's a good reason not to. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:FOREIGNITALIC and WP:MOSCAPS. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done, [2], thank you @SlimVirgin:! Edelseider (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. The citations still need work. Quite a few have publisher and location missing. This one is written in full: Schnitzler, Bernadette; Schneider, Malou (1985). Le Musée archéologique de Strasbourg. Strasbourg: Musées de Strasbourg. Some have ISBNs, others not. ISBNs aren't required, but we need consistency. Also, I wouldn't give nytimes.com as the publisher. Better to say The New York Times. Ditto with the other newspapers and magazines. And Council of Europe, rather than coe.int. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Schnitzler/Schneider book has no ISBN. What can I do? Specify that it has no ISBN? You may not believe me but it really hasn't - the book is right in front of me as I write.--Edelseider (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

f it has no ISBN, that's okay. The problem is that you're using an unusual system, which is hard to scan. On first mention: Recht, Roland; Foessel, Georges; Klein, Jean-Pierre (1988). Connaître Strasbourg. p. 72. ISBN 2-7032-0185-0. Thereinafter: Recht, Roland; Foessel, Georges; Klein, Jean-Pierre. Connaître Strasbourg. p. 66. Not much difference, and the full cite is missing location and publisher. Please add the missing information, and consider fixing the short cites to something more standard. Or you can use the {{rp}} template if you don't want to use short citations. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope it is allright now Sarah.--Edelseider (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The information needed for books is: John Smith, Title of Book, London: Routledge, 2017, p. 1. And ISBN if wanted. You can vary that: Smith, John; full stops rather than commas, or a combination; year in brackets after the name; leave out "p" and just write the page number; write them manually or use templates. Another example: Smith, John (2017). Title of Book, London: Routledge, 1.

For short cites: Smith 2017, p. 1. or Smith (2017), 1. Or you can use the template {{rp}} to repeat the long citations using ref name and {{rp}} to add the page number. I'll explain more how to do that if you want to use it.

For newspapers: John Smith, "Title of article", The New York Times, 28 February 2017. You can add an access date if the source is a website that hosts undated articles.

See WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates for more information. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In case it helps, an example of a well-referenced FA without templates is Ernest Hemingway, and with templates Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is not fine as it is now. I am sorry but I'm afraid that you will want me to change everything again once I have changed everything (again). I have used templates from the start to the finish. Do I really have to keep on with this? --Edelseider (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please take the time to add a consistent citation style that includes author name, date/year of publication, title, and publisher. And location for books. The current version has information missing and is inconsistent, e.g. footnote 4, no publisher; ditto footnote 7; what is crdp-strasbourg.fr? Those are just examples. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• The website archi-wiki.org is used a few times. Is that crowd-sourced? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it is financially supported by the city of Strasbourg and the region Grand Est, among other institutions, so it is more official than Wikipedia. Just see the bottom of the page: http://www.archi-wiki.org/. Edelseider (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: − I have  Done it all now, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=767957980&oldid=767880925. I admit that it looks much better! --Edelseider (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That does look better. It needs more work. Several need publication dates (e.g. refs 2 and 3). The New York Times needs italics and so do other titles. Please add the titles to the "work" parameter of the templates; that will add italics. No need to include the website too (e.g. "britannica.com. Encyclopaedia Britannica" looks odd, and Encyclopaedia Britannica needs italics). Again, these are just examples. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a long sentence, and I'm not sure what it means: "The symmetry impression of the riverside façade, arranged around an avant-corps of four columns with Corinthian capitals supporting a voluminous pediment again adorned with the coat of arms of the House of Rohan, is enlivened by the library wing on the west side, which offers a contrast in structure." SarahSV ^(talk) 02:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: – TAA-DAAA! All the best, Edelseider (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's looking good, thank you. I've added full stops after the short refs, because the long refs have them. I've also fixed a few inconsistencies, and I left you two demos (different ways of doing it), [3][4] in case you want the short refs to link to the long ones. But that's not required.

A few points: Ref 35: It's not clear what this source is. [5] Ref 37: Best to use the original source here, not this summary of it. [6] Refs 66 and 68: Both say "History". Musées de la ville de Strasbourg, but lead to different URLs. Perhaps change one title?

Ref35: It's an article from a now defunct website dedicated to Napoleon. The author (Christophe Bourachot) has published a few books on the subject. I shall add his name for more clarity. Refs 66 and 68, indeed, and that's why I didn't capitalize the first "History" (I wrote "history" instead), but since it is confusing, I'll just expand the titles. Ref37 : you are right.Edelseider (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's best to avoid self-published sources such as the Napoleon one and the wiki. As Christophe Bourachot is a published author on Napoleon, could you use one of his books instead? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, but I think I can remove this reference anyway - he doesn't provide anything new, just a photographic proof that there is indeed a bedroom of Napoleon in the Palace.

As for archi-wiki, don't let the name and the design fool you, it is a reliable source; as I told you they are funded by the municipality of Strasbourg and other institutions like the Ministère de la culture et de la communication so I wouldn't say they are self-published the way websites run by individuals for their own pleasure are. --Edelseider (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Edelseider (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't clear what your bibliography is. The first three entries aren't used as references, and the first two are almost identical, except for the year but with the same ISBN. The latter two are used as references.SarahSV ^(talk) 19:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll call the other books "further reading", then.Edelseider (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Edelseider (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Publisher and location? And do both volumes really have the same ISBN? Les grands appartements du Palais Rohan de Strasbourg also needs location and publisher. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Both volumes do have the same ISBN, I've checked, so I've removed the mention of a volume altogether.--Edelseider (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for making all those fixes. It's looking good. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience! --Edelseider (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

And thanks to you too! I know it seems niggly, but these things really affect whether it looks professional. There's still inconsistent capitalization, e.g. Musée des Beaux-Arts/Musée des beaux-arts. Whichever you choose, just make sure it's consistent. Perhaps check the Wikipedia article to see what it does, and the museum website. And only proper nouns/names are capitalized, so state is lower case. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually strike that. I think they're all fixed. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Only the portrait of Armand Gaston, the builder of the palace, was later restored to its original place with a 1982 copy after Hyacinthe Rigaud." By "after", do you mean "in the style of"? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I think I could formulate that sentence even better. Will do. --Edelseider (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a replica after one of the contemporary copies of the painting, like this one: [7], because of course nobody could make a copy in 1982 of the destroyed original. --Edelseider (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that's clearer. Re: this edit, is it one bishop or plural? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It is several bishops. I followed your edit here. If you were wrong, I replicated the mistake, but it's easy to correct. --Edelseider (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's plural, it's bishops' hall. Re: caps, we also have Bishop's Hall, Bedchamber of the King, Cabinet of the King, Assembly room. It's up to you to decide whether they are names, and whether you are translating them as names or as descriptions, and if names whether both words are capitalized. I can't decide that because I'm not familiar with the sources, but I think I would write them all lower case in English. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done − I think we are through now! Phew! All the best, Edelseider (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this sentence: "Besides the apartments of the prince-bishops and cardinals, the main focus of the museum is the local production of porcelain (Strasbourg faience), silver-gilt and clockmaking, with original parts of the medieval Strasbourg astronomical clock including the automaton rooster from 1354."

And this one should be broken up: "It was established in its current form in the years 1920–1924, when the collections of the Kunstgewerbe-Museum Hohenlohe (originally established in 1887 and located until then in the Renaissance former municipal slaughterhouse – the Grandes Boucheries or Große Metzig – which now hosts the Musée historique de Strasbourg[66]) were relocated in the stables wing adjacent to the Palace apartments." SarahSV ^(talk) 01:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=768347645&oldid=768324529. Are we through now? --Edelseider (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's coming along. Thank you for the fixes. A few more points:

• This sentence should be broken up, and any other like it: "In 1939 already, the carpet covering the table in the middle of the library, woven in Portuguese India around 1730[N 3], which was given to the Cathedral chapter after 1806 and sold to the Musée de Cluny in 1865, was returned to the city of Strasbourg on permanent loan."
• "copies after" should be unpacked, because most readers won't know what it means: "copies after Antonio da Correggio", "copies after greater masters", and any other examples.
• Contemporaneous is better than contemporary in "replacing 18th-century copies after contemporary French masters", and any similar usage.
• Could you explain this? "Napoleon's green bed is an original work by Jacob-Desmalter."
• typo: "through it single, very large window"
• It isn't clear in the lead who owns it now ("the Palais was owned in turn by the nobility, the municipality, the monarchy, the state and the university"). You could also say who has lived there and who the illustrious guests were.
• Is there any information about who actually built it, i.e. a social history? There often isn't, but if it exists, it would be interesting. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: – Sarah, you are a bit a sadist, aren't you? This is not perfectionism, this is torture. You are coming now with a lot of questions you could have asked a week ago. What else do you have in store? How many points? Can't you just name them all at once? Damn it, I'm getting really upset now! What do you mean by "readers wouldn't know what copies are?" What kind of readers do you mean? Illiterate people who would never read an article? --Edelseider (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't even understand your question about "who built it". Did you read the article? In 1727, Armand Gaston Maximilien de Rohan, bishop of Strasbourg since 1704 and Cardinal since 1712, commissioned the architect Robert de Cotte to design the palace; De Cotte provided initial plans the same year. Building work on the Palais Rohan, mostly in yellow sandstone from Wasselonne, with pink sandstone for the less visible parts, took place from 1732 until 1742 under the supervision of the municipal architect Joseph Massol, who also worked on the Hôtel de Hanau and the Hôtel de Klinglin during the early years of the project. Massol was assisted by the architects Laurent Gourlade and Étienne Le Chevalier. The sculptures – statues as well as reliefs – were provided by Robert Le Lorrain, assisted by Johann August Nahl, Gaspard Pollet and Laurent Leprince; the paintings by Pierre Ignace Parrocel and Robert de Séry. The ébéniste Bernard Kocke and the ironworkers and locksmiths Jean-François Agon and his son Antoine Agon worked on the furnishings of the apartments, while the stucco was the work of the Italians Castelli and Morsegno. --Edelseider (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I have done these edits now and I really wish you could put an end to this charade now, it isn't pleasant any more and I'd rather quit editing than be pushed around like that! --Edelseider (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Edelseider, these last comments really step over the line. I'm afraid if you continue like this, nobody will review this article. It needs to be a collaboration. Sarah is a very experienced reviewer and knows her way around FAC, and knows what a FA needs. It would make much more sense to work with her rather than resort to insults. I would advise striking some of those comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: – Father of Pamina, I have been a very obedient and diligent collaborator and so far I have worked with Sarah tirelessly. But instead of giving me a long and consistent list of tasks, or at least several longish lists, she is giving me the drop-by-drop treatment that is also known as Chinese torture. Now she is telling me things (rewriting the intro) we could have started with! I will endure this until the very end, not for me because I am and will remain anonymous, but for the Palais Rohan itself, but honestly, I feel treated in a way that I do not really deserve. What would Wikipedia be without the people who write articles? --Edelseider (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, here are the new edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=768563311&oldid=768347645. --Edelseider (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Edelseider, the problem has been that you've fixed only the examples I've pointed out, rather than fixing all instances of the same issue. When I wrote on 28 February: "Caps and italics: you should decide on style and formatting (including for references), then make it consistent", that meant "please fix all the style inconsistencies". Having to point out every single example has felt like water torture to me too.

When I asked who built it, I was referring to the labour force; the architects didn't build it. I wondered whether anything is known about the work force: how many involved, how they were paid, where they lived, and so on. It was just a suggestion.

Re: the lead. I could only make suggestions for the lead after having read the article. Anyway, I'll leave it there. Best of luck with it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: – to be fair, you should strike the points that have been addressed in the last four days, there are many. Wherever this goes. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

I'll take a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Edelseider (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• ...from the architect Robert de Cotte - I don't understand how it can be commissioned from an architect...?

That's a language problem (mine). How would you say? I sincerely don't know (I am a level 3.5 English speaker, not a level 5). --Edelseider (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(We-ell, I can confirm your English is better than my Francais or Deutsch..I fumbled around in German when I was in Strasbourg 25 years ago..lovely place) Okay, well trying to establish what it means - does it mean the Cardinal got de Cotte to do the design? or something else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. In German, you would say er beauftragte ihn mit einem Bau or er gab einen Bau bei ihm in Auftrag, in French you would say il lui a commandé un édifice - meaning that he formally asked him to design a building for him.--Edelseider (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Architecture is by no means a strong point of mine - my feeling is the cardinal commissions the architect to build the palace (i.e. the object of "commission" is the architect not the palace...need to check on this) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done, I've completely rewritten that sentence: [8]. Edelseider (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Palais Rohan in Strasbourg was built on the site of the former residence of the bishop... - the "in Strasbourg" is a bit repetitive as the words have just been used in the previous sentence...and we've established it is in Strasbourg anyway...?

:Fair point, I'll remove that. --Edelseider (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Paragraph 2 in the Up to 1871 subsection is a bit listy. Any extra information (on artworks or artists) might help breaking up a long list of names.

@Casliber: – it's  Done now, see here. --Edelseider (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why is there a link to facebook at the bottom?

Why not? It's the official page of the Palace, maintained by the Musées de Strasbourg. Shall I remove it? --Edelseider (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I would. It doesn't add anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay.--Edelseider (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• To compensate for the declivity, - err, wy not just say "slope" or "incline"

indeed, why not. --Edelseider (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't see anything on its dimensions (unless I am missing something...) how tall/long/wide is it?

I have no idea. I have looked for that kind of information but found nothing. I would like to know as well! --Edelseider (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, you tried. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Ultimately, it's looking good and on track for FA status I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

I was nicely invited on my talk and will look now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• "such as Louis XV of France, Marie Antoinette, Napoleon and Joséphine, and Charles X of France", - for someone not knowing that looks like Napoleon not of France ;) - How about "French royalty"?
• If you want to pipe university, get the "the" in the link, or people would expect University and not click. I'd just un-pipe it.

Up to 1871

• Why bishop but Cardinal?
• Do we need all the different names of the former desmene? If yes, can it go to a footnote?
• "antique" - how about "ancient" or "Roman"?
• "Building work ..." - a long sentence. I'd like to read the time first, then the material (if at all in "History").
• "The Palais Rohan remained the hôtel de ville until 1805", - how about introducing the French term when town hall is mentioned.

Since 1871

• "German rule over Alsace (Alsace had previously ..." - how about avoiding repetition: "German rule over Alsace which had previously ..."?
• "On August 11" - I'd use European dates consistently, even for American bombs.

Notable guests

• Why the days in brackets after the years?
• Why the presidents out of chronology?

Structure

• How about river Ill?
• "Christian virtues, such as "Religion", "Clemency", "Penitence", "Eucharist"" - I don't know religion and eucharist as virtues ;)

Exterior views

• I'd like the first one from 1744 in the text body because it's too small.

Apartments

• "garderobe are" or "garderobe is"?

More to come, interesting (hi)story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Back, but found nothing more. I could images of what the museums contain.

General wish: not many references at the end of a paragraph, but more specifically to single facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you dear Gerda, I am going to take care of all that over the next three days (maximum).--Edelseider (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: – it's  Done, thank you for your input. I did not add images from the content of the museums because it is impossible to choose only eight items among all of them. I made a valuable selection a while ago here: Commons:Palais_Rohan_(Strasbourg)#Collections_municipales but that's as narrow as it can get! Heartily, Edelseider (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Support. As said before, I personally prefer references not within the text, but that's up to you.

Ceoil

I would like to eventually support this article, as the nominator has a lot of knowledge and the topic has worth. However, the prose as stands is very labored. Oppose for now, in lieu of a copy edit, which is sorely needed.

The main issue I see here is run on-sentences, eg (at random) "The Palais Rohan remained the hôtel de ville until 1805, when it was offered to Napoleon who, in return, gave the city the hitherto state-owned Hôtel de Hanau, an arrangement which proved favourable for everybody: for the municipality, the maintenance of the Hôtel de Hanau was less costly than that of the larger Palais Rohan; for Napoleon, the palace was the more conspicuous display of grandeur; for the palace, imperial ownership meant renewed splendour. The gift to Napoleon was officially accepted by decree on 21 January 1806."

The run ons here are " for the municipality, the maintenance..." and "for the palace". Unfortunately, the article has a lot of this. Nor do I like like 'hitherto'. Ceoil (talk)

"The stucco of the library however, lost in 1817 because of the leaking flat roof above that room (the only free standing part of the building), was never restored" - I understand the points, but sentences such as this lack focus and coherence for the average reader. There is too much crammed in, and the punctuation seems random. Once again, this is an eg of an issue I find through out the page. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will take care of that. That doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. You want shorter sentences. More precise statements. I understand. Edelseider (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I have  Done as best as I could, please see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=772937976&oldid=772559913. Thanks for the compliment on my knowledge, by the way. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note to other reviewers: if Ceoil doesn't return, please acknowledge that the points he raised have been addressed. Thank you, --Edelseider (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Will revisit shortly. I see you are a not a native speaker, so can help out. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Help is not needed (but thank you, anyway), what is needed is the acknowledgment of the work that has been done, i. e. that you lift your "oppose" at long last. Comme on, you started this! Now close the circle! --Edelseider (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ɱ

I'm not doing a full review unless you want me to, but I saw some curious things here.

• Wikilink "prelate", never heard this term
• I'm surprised you wikilink common terms like art gallery, exhibition, statues, taxes, vases, paintings, library, columns, copper, staircase, balconies, arches, busts, stables, trophies, tapestries, and porcelain. (MOS:OVERLINK)
• I've never seen File:Strassburg 5917.jpg described as Empire style. Two houses I've seen with this style of room are the Vanderbilt Mansion and Woodlea, neither of which use that terminology in their sources. Do you have sources? Some say it's in the style of a house of mirrors (implying like Versailles'), but I'm making a separate commonscat just for "gold rooms".
• I would remove the archi-wiki link per WP:ELNO

Best, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ɱ, of course I have sources for the Empire style. Remember, this is the style that was created under Napoleon, in France. I think that the Vanderbilt mansion is not an example of French design or of design from the 1800s. You should travel to Europe to see authentic Empire style, like in the Palais Rohan, or just read the article Empire style. --Edelseider (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be glad if you provided some. And I was saying Frederick and Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt's McKim, Mead & White mansions both have rooms designed in that style, not that the entire houses are. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I understood that very well. And I will provide sources. But you should acknowledge, first, that any design made in the late 1890s is not Empire Style, but "neo-"Empire style at best. Because it wasn't made in the first decade and a half of the 19th-century, the time of the actual French Empire. If you don't get your history of art right, I can't take our discussion seriously. --Edelseider (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, here is a source among many. I feel a bit ridiculous because you are asking me to source something as obvious as a sunrise, but there you are: «Le mobilier de style Empire dont la chambre de l'empereur au palais Rohan à Strasbourg». Edelseider (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I couldn't tell; the article "Empire style" has very few details on the defining elements of the style, as opposed to articles on the most common architectural styles. The article certainly doesn't mention key elements of gold rooms as I have seen them, with the use of white with gold trim, mirrors and/or murals, and typically marble columns or mantelpieces. I haven't found sources linking this (as is used in your palace and my two New York estates) to Empire style. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how are you writing FAs? This isn't a reliable source for my request in the least. An image caption (presumably quoting some unknown person) on a French newspaper section listing conferences? Describing not the whole interior design but merely the furniture? And somewhat insulting me saying it's blatantly obvious, when it's not written on the wiki article (also containing no photos of the style I described), and I found no sources to link that style to your terminology? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The article already references (n°22 and 23) that the Napoleonic features of the palace were designed by Pierre-François-Léonard Fontaine and François-Honoré-Georges Jacob-Desmalter. And you shouldn't dismiss a conference just because it is advertised in Les Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace and not the NYT. Just saying. --Edelseider (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The first things you mention are not direct sources. I don't care if a furniture designer or architect/interior designer predominantly or always designs in one style. The burden is to provide a RS that describes the Empire style resembling the image I linked above, or otherwise remove it from the article. And a newspaper is only reliable when its writers produce articles that are fact-checked and proofread. Even if the NYT has a list of conferences somewhere, I still wouldn't call that an RS for architectural styles. And don't get me started on the fact that it's an image caption. Captions are notoriously incorrect, usually copied from wherever previously used the photo, and almost always glossed over even when editors are involved. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, regardless of this relatively minor issue, what do you think of my other initial comments? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - An excellent read, but not quite FA standard yet. The prose is not idiomatic. Examples: "De Cotte had also previously designed", (word order),"the territory also known as Alsace-Lorraine, or Elsass-Lothringen in German" (comma needed) and "The architect, Robert de Cotte, was thus able to distribute the interior spaces of the residential bulk on an even grander and also more practical plan" (unintelligible). I suspect this has written by a non-native English speaker. It needs copyediting, preferably by someone who can bring a fresh pair of eyes. Graham Beards (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: This has been open a long time now, and I'm afraid there is no consensus to promote. There are two considered opposes, both on grounds of prose, and the lack of consensus in 8 weeks despite extended commentary means that I am going to archive shortly. This article can be renominated in two weeks, but I would recommend working with the reviewers on the prose away from FAC and bringing it back once their concerns have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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