Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince's Palace of Monaco

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Prince's Palace of Monaco edit

A self nom. I wrote this a few months ago to clean up a stub [1]. Not one of the world's greatest buildings but quite interesting (I think) nevertheless. Giano 16:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • This very promising and well-illustrated article needs a rigorous copy-edit.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple capitalisations of "Palace", "Lord/s", "Prince", "Royal", "King" etc when used generically. (e.g. This event is commemorated by a statue of François Grimaldi in the precincts of the Palace and in the coat of arms of the Royal House where François is depicted wielding a sword while in the garb of a monk and he incurred the ire of the English King Charles II by showering expensive gifts on Hortense Mancini, the King's mistress.)
  • I think I have found them all. Giano 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typos: architecture od possible, palace us far older, Heres two tiers of frescoed open arcades.
Addressed. Giano 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monegasque is missing its acute accent (Monégasque).
Fixed. Giano 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the Grimaldis a royal family? They were originally a client principality of the kingdom of France. I think they're one rank down, hence "Serene Highness" rather than "Royal Highness". And, following on from this, are sovereign princes monarchs?
No they are definitly not Royal but I think Monaco likes to think they are. The palace is often referred to as the royal palace, and of course it has a throne room. I have tried to be no specific as often as possible using ruling rather then reigning ect. I'll have a look in a moment and take out "monarch" that must have slipped in. It is difficult though as many of the Monaco references refer to them in royal terms. Giano 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason why Milan is called Milano?
No - Freudian slip on my part. Fixed.Giano 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ;Remaining copy issues
  • It's a bit wordy: The Grimaldi ruled the area first as Lords, and from the 17th century as sovereign princes, but their power was often derived from fragile agreements with their larger and stronger neighbours. Thus in times when other sovereigns were building luxurious palaces, the rulers of Monaco could not relax into magnificent Renaissance or Baroque edifices as did their more powerful fellow sovereigns.
Is this any better [2]? Giano 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copy is flowery (and clunky) in places. Example: It was apt that the staircase and entrance, two of the most flamboyant and extravagant features of the palace, should have been added by Prince Louis, as these adjectives could also be applied to the Prince's private life which was as noted for permissiveness as those of his ancestors had been for their skills in war.
How's this [3]. Giano 16:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetitions: However, the cost of upholding his position at the Papal court caused him to sell most of his grandfather Honoré II's art collection, thus denuding the Monaco Palace which he had earlier so spectacularly enhanced.... Louis I was succeeded by his son Prince Antoine. The new prince inherited a principality impoverished by the extravagances of his father, which forced him to remain in Monaco almost penniless in a Palace empty of many of its former treasures.
Is that really repetition? More emphasis on the plight of the new Prince, I'll take out the last few words. Try this [4]. Giano 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's repetition, even if it's done for rhetorical effect :))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I much appreciate your efforts here. I must stress that this isn't badly-written simply rather too expansive to be encyclopedic. I've now also had a go at copy-editing this. I'll look at it again later. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A very engaging read, and charmingly illustrated. Ceoil 13:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Giano 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I had the privilege of watching this article grow from a stub, and I've briefly looked at the changes since March 2007. Seems fine to me. One possible addition might be a timeline of some sort? Carcharoth 20:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, the trouble with timelines is that they run dow the side of the page and shove everything to one side, and everyone's screen shows them differently. We did one on John Vanbrugh and it was useful in such a long complicated page but this page is quite chronologically written and in ordered sections and dated maps so I beleive it would just be unnecessary clutter on many screens and the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages. Giano 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, stumbled across this via Giano's user pages when he was first working on it (I forget what took me there in the first place), and even then it seemed a fine article. With the copyediting sorted it deserves elevation. David Underdown 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I did some very minor dash fixing. Is the list of websources in the References section meant to be sources or external links? If those websites were used as sources, it would be better to list their publishers; if they are intended as Further reading or External links, a new heading could be added. The size of the lead image reduces the text next to it to only one word per line on both of my browsers; can it be reduced from 500 to 400, so that the text will be less sandwiched? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Do you want to link the full dates in the "Regaining the palace" section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image is now reduced, though it looks ridiculously small on my screen and fine before. The websites are references and cited within the text. The publishers are now listed. I don't see the point of linking every date in such a long and historicall page, it is not necessary for the reader to know that a Monagasque prince mentioned in the page shared his birthdate with an American called Eddie Rabbitt born 200 years later so with that in mind I have removed the full date and given just the year. Giano 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you Tony. Giano 14:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - beautifully illustrated, and a surprisingly interesting story. Just a few minor matters, some even trivial:
    • family which in 1997 celebrated 700 years of rule from the same palace - they were expelled from both palace and rule for a noticeable period during the French Revolution; is there a way to rephrase?
No, because the source is saying that not me. Note - I do not say uninterupred rule. Giano 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • while the overriding atmosphere of the interior - capital W
Fixed, really AnonE you could do these things yourself when you notice them! Giano 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But then I'd be too tempted to also zap the short paragraph below which you like. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Princess Grace predeceased her husband dying in 1982 - comma after husband
Fixed! Giano 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • both his palace and his country in a stronger and more stable state ... than it had been - than they had been
Fixed! Giano 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Louis died before securing the Spanish throne for France; an act which would have earned the Grimaldi huge rewards. - comma, rather than semicolon;
Fixed! Giano 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honoré III married Catherine Brignole[17] in 1757 and later divorced her. Interestingly, before his marriage Honoré III had been conducting an affair with his future mother-in-law.[18] After her divorce Marie Brignole married Louis Joseph de Bourbon, prince de Condé, a member of the fallen French royal house, in 1798. - while very interesting, this has nothing to do with the palace per se. I think the whole paragraph should go to the individual articles on these people or the Monagasque royal family or something.

No, not at all, keep it in, people like a bit if sex and drama in a long boring architectural page, keeps em reading to the end

As a card-carrying member of WP:P*, I'm shocked, shocked that you might want to resort to prurience to draw attention! :-) More seriously, you don't need it. It's actually one of the more boring paragraphs in the whole piece, which is quite interesting, as I wrote, I do think it should go. But I won't oppose over this issue. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glamour and theatricality became reality when the American film star Grace Kelly became chatelaine to the palace in 1956. - this is in the lead, but you don't actually say anything about what she did to the palace in the body, and the lead should be a summary of the body; expand (preferable) or just move from the lead to the body --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very moot point AnonE, this is not one of the world's great buildings, most USA citizens will want to see her there in the lead, as they associate the place with her. However, the refs suggest that she was not that great a brick layer, in fact while the palace was restored during the period she held the consort title, they don't actually mention her too much. So we cannot go to much into the realms of own research. I'll spin out a paragraph conected with her. Thanks for the support. Giano 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An engaging and fascinating article which informs the reader not only about the architecture but about the rulers who made the various additions. Clear, fluent prose which holds the attention; architectural terms aren't skirted round, I'm glad to say, but they never obtrude. By the way, it would be a nice tidbit to hear what Queen Victoria actually said. Do we know? qp10qp (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Prince%27s_Palace_of_Monaco&oldid=1138469339"