Wikipedia:Peer review/Louvre/archive2

Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it is nearing FA criteria. In May, this article had a failed FAC nom and a Peer Review. The concerns raised in these reviews have been addressed, but I hope for one more critical review before going to FAC. Thanks much for your time!

Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On a quick look, much improved. The amount on the early building seems about right now. The pyramid paragraph seems oddly placed - it would be better moved up to fit into the chronolgical sequence. Referencing and prose seem improved, but the article still has a strong whiff of the guide-book. Some stuff on evening opening, admission prices, number of entrances - is it only through the pyramid? do they still close on Monday is it? are the queues still terrible? would be useful. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Usual order of refs/etc is See also, notes, then works cited. Might consider changing that.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this (although I guess you won't see my thanks :)--I'll come to your talk later today. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs)

• This is a well-written article. I suspect that's the reason there hasn't been much input in this peer review. I think it's pretty much ready for an FAC. The only thing to say is that I concur with Ealdgyth's above comments about the order of refs/ect. Good work, and best of luck. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Modernist (talk · contribs)

• Not even close to FAC. Before I can support this article it needs to be expanded. The article is seriously deficient in several areas and needs to discuss: Contemporary art and it's relationship to the museum, 20th century art, 20th century acquisitions, the museum's relationship to 19th century art, 19th century acquisitions, political control of the aesthetic policies of the museum, Impressionism, the Salon (art), the Salon des Refusés, the Gustave Caillebotte collection,[1], The Orangerie, - Tuileries: Orangerie in the Tuileries Gardens, and the Claude Monet mural bequest arranged by Georges Clemenceau; Gustave Courbet and the Salon, and the Paris Commune and exile. Otherwise it is basically still an incomplete and boring travelogue. Keep working on it......Modernist (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. I see what you are saying; though, one of the problems is the length. In other words, there is much to be said about the architecture, administration, acquisitions, the art itself, history, etc. The article is currently quite lengthy. If length/readability/summary style is taken into consideration and the article is to be expanded even further, then that is fine. But, I am concerned with the length. In other words, would something else have to go? What do you think? Lazulilasher (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest writing or rather adding the material in copious and full fledged sections without thought or worry about length. When the article is sufficiently and substantively informative about one of the world's greatest museum's - then you cut away the extraneous and unnecessary material. First keep adding the good stuff.....Modernist (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments What is there is well written and looks good to me, but I am not an expert on the Museum or its collections. Here are a few suggestions / ideas for improvement.

• I do know that most art articles have some sort of critical reception section / treatment - what do critics say about the museum and its collections and the way it displays and conserves them?
• I do not think the article is too long now and think it could be somewhat longer easily, especially to meet comprehensiveness concerns, which are an FA criterion. There is a readability tool here [2] which shows the readable text is only 26.7 KB, which is not that long. For comparison, this much more obscure state park (which is much less important than the Louvre) has five supports and no opposes at FAC now, and is 82.5 KB total size, 41.8 KB readable text. A well written article on an important topic can be longer.
• The Louvre is so well known that the article has to be really excellent to pass FAC and satisfy everyone - I would look at all of the comments from the previous FAC and see if they have been met. If you think they have, ask the reviewer then to look at it again now and see if they agree.

Hope this helps, this is much improved. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree length is not an issue yet, although the effect of pictures - obviously essential here - does impact loading times. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wrong :) I'm not sure how I got it into my head that 50kb was the maximum; I think I misunderstood that as 50 kb total size. I spent a few weeks trimming. Ok, I do agree heartily with the above; I'd just been operating under the impression that there was a "cap" and had lately been concerned with cutting material. Fair enough, I don't mind adding more material, especially since everyone agrees it is a good idea. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here and their Peer Review for recent discussions on the issue. As people have said, this article also covers a huge topic & can justify a large size. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's one of the discussions which led to my length concerns. Ok, I feel better about it now. I wasn't sure if the Louvre qualified as broad enough. I personally felt that it did qualify as a broad topic -- it's 800+ years old, most visited, it's a palace, strongly influenced the notion of state/universalist museum, etc) -- but, I didn't know if others would agree. It seems like everyone does, which is good. On the inverse, it will take awhile before an FAC nom, but that's OK. There isn't presently much history post-Revolution (and there's information missing also about the development: i.e. from the Lux Gardens that I'd earlier felt was overly detailed). Lazulilasher (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never understand, or know how to use, the different ways of calculating size. You might ask one of the more knowlegeable editors for a comment on this point. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch's tool (above) is useful. Regardless, everyone promotes expansion. This is good feedback from a Peer Review. Plus, I learned something (FAs aren't hamstringed by a 50kb file size), and this article qualifies as broad enough in topic. The truth is: the Louvre is unique: it's perhaps the first universal suvey museum; it has over 800 years of architectural history; contains arguably the most important collection of Western painting; largest collection of Egyptian art outside of Egypt; etc. So, I'm glad everyone feels the same way. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]