Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Queluz National Palace

< 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 03:19, 20 December 2007.

Queluz National Palace

edit
check links —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly a self nomination, although there was a perfectly adequate page with useful information there before [1] most of which has been retained albeit in a different format. It has been well checked for obvious and glaring errors by several very proficient copy-editors. To my mind this is one of the most attractive buildings in Europe and a featured article on it is long overdue but I hope that point of view is not evident in the article. Giano (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I fixed a few ref placements, a typo and a stray space. I think I got all the refs, but probably worth checking for those and typos - just a once over.
In Exterior, the sentence "While Oliveira was directly responsible for the "Ceremonial Facade" of the "corps de logis" the rectangular block which forms the nucleus of the palace, and some of the interior courtyards, his former tutor, the Frenchman Jean-Baptiste Robillon, was in charge of the gardens, many buildings, and the rococo interiors, with the assistance of Jean-Baptiste Pillement, together with other French and Portuguese artists." – phew! It first struck me because of a missing comma, and I'd normally just add that, but this sentence is surely too long. Can you cut it into bits?
I think there are a few bits in Exterior certainly, and possibly Interior, that need referencing. Example: "The "Ceremonial Facade" is the best-known view of the palace." from Exterior. Actually, Interior seems to be mostly a list of non-controversial facts, so probably that's OK.

That's it for now; haven't gone through it completely or thoroughly yet, but I'll add stuff here as/when/if I find it. Carre (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'd support a reversion of that change from "façade" to "facade". My (BrE) dictionary on Firefox throws "facade" as a mistake, and offers the version with the cedilla as a correction, and Chambers dictionary also lists "façade" ahead of the unaccented version. Carre (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I was not aware anyone had changed façade to facade, whatever it is now reverted. I have broken the sentend you suggest. I am not going to cite the "best known view" as just try googling or buying any book on the subject, it would be like having to cite Buckingham palace is best known from The Mall. To most people it is the only known façade. Giano (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough re the cite. I've changed a few of the "façade" to lowercase. Question: in the caption for the first image in Later history, should "tritan" be "triton", per the wl in the last para of the previous section? Carre (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should, as I you have just conflicted me and I (expect I have you) I will leave it to you to change. Giano (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the facade change as both were used in the article and my experience in that facade is a commonly-used architectural term (M-W has façade as the variant). Personally, I prefer the Anglicized spelling but yield to the majority. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh - it looks like another of those vexatious WP:ENGVAR things: both Chambers and the Shorter OED support the cedilla version above the non-accented one. Calling "facade" Anglicized isn't quite right, obviously, since BrE doesn't recommend that usage. Anyway, the whole ENGVAR issue is always heated, so it's down to Gianno as to whether BrE or AmE is used. Carre (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as it is now - I don't have strong views either way. Giano (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have mostly been addressed. Unsure about whether references are or are not needed in Exterior (save Giano's explanation for that one, above). Carre (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the page any statement or basic fact which could be challenged - such as "Carlotta Joaquina, sometimes descrbed as sinister" is fully referenced as it should be. Giano (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too many unreferenced paragraphs. Try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. Any particular paragraph or just a certain number required for each paragraph? Giano (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two unreferenced paragraphs in "Exterior" section and the last paragraph of "Queluz, National Monument" section is also unreferenced. How do I know where the info comes from or maybe it is original research? Some FAs have references for every sentence. At least have 1 reference per paragraph, if all the info in that paragraph is from the same reference, put the reference at the end of the paragraph. A paragraph with two sentences, then a reference, then two sentences with no reference is also bad. That's why I say "try GA first", because now the article has GA standard referencing but not FA standard referencing. Also, the lead section sucks. The third paragraph is too short. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count the references and the paragraphs and then "try GA"? For my part, I doubt that the FA director will take an Oppose based on this kind of arithmetic seriously. Bishonen | talk 11:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
As long as it is "actionable" he will take it seriously. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. But perhaps I should point out that "actionable" doesn't mean "doable" or "possible", it means "profitable", "constructive", "useful". I'm sure Raul will take Opposes that have these qualities seriously, yes. I'm content to leave it to him. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Wow... very pretty.
    "In much the same way, Frederick the Great used Europe's other famed rococo palace, Sanssouci." - better said "Frederick the Great also did ____" I believe - otherwise it would be OR - wouldn't it?
    --Keerllston 13:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't eally understand the point you are making. Please just change the page to reflect that. Giano (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No interest in an info box whatsoever. The page does not need one - all the info is right there in the lead. Giano (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is some impressive set of typos. A typopalooza! All due respect but I don't know if you are trying to make a point (in which case it flies over my head). Or maybe you are texting in the dark . . . or on a train?? Smile. (typos since corrected 14:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)) Anywho, sounds like you no likee infobox? --JustaHulk (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giano's texts usually corrected by friends, occasionally miss. No point being made. 'Zilla regret to see dyslexia fly over JustaHulk head. bishzilla ROARR!! 12:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If I keep my head down, things fly over it - I just can't win! --JustaHulk (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infoboxes are not mandatory, thank goodness. It's all a matter of personal preference; some users feel they clutter up the article and merely repeat info that is better handled via prose. I personally can go either way. If the curator is a necessary addition to the article (I don't feel it is, however, unless that individual is notable in their own right), then it can be added to the body. María (habla conmigo) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boxes invite edits and sometimes edit wars. They really need to be part of the planning and design of an article from the start or need a very sophisticated editor to place them after the fact. They also require judgment. I have recently seen the minor George Duckett grow two boxes. Well, that's fine, if useless, but then the box started getting this absolutely gigantic "photo needed," when the man died in 1732. Then it got national flags sprouting up on the man's grave. Then.... Because boxes are endlessly tinkered, one needs to plan for a major bit of space or take a stand against their presence altogether, because, once there, they grow. (With the minor figures I do, I don't much mind if they grow. For an FA, it can be a royal mess.) Geogre (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Than you for your comments Piotrus. I have reffed many of your points. However, I don't feel it it is necessary to cite the existence of something which is illustrated by a photograph in the article. Nor it is it necessary to cite that a palace open to the public in Lisbon with thousands of google hits and its own website used as a reference published by the national Portuguese authority for National buildings and monuments is in fact a tourist attraction. I hope you agree and I can look forward to your support. Giano (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a thorough, accurate treatment of the topic. The pictures are relevant and attractive. Disclosure: I proof read this article and made minor edits. - Jehochman Talk 22:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What Jehochman said. The pictures really are excellent, though I do miss the semi-crouching woman in glasses scuttling to get out of the way - she's in all my photos. Yomanganitalk 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, can I just point out that thanks to Husond's visit to Queluz yesterday this article now has some of the best, if not the best, interior shots of any page of its kind on Wikipedia. Most of these pages are usually sadly devoid of interior images because photography is forbidden. Giano (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Giano made an excellent work here. The red links should become blue though. Húsönd 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The reasons for objection, above, are simply nonsensical. Do these people believe that something in the paragraph needs to be cited? Does Piotrus have sources that challenge the statements? Is there some density of footnote that achieves a tipping point? All criteria are met, here. I am pleased to support this article on a masterpiece and take some consolation that it is not, as is usual these days, 10,000 citations to websites and 200 borrowed images so as to pass by false Scyllae and Charibdisa and the picket fence of people who do not read articles and who seek to abdicate the obligations of human reason and judgment as swiftly as possible. Well done, informative, and well referenced. Geogre (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Level of referencing now seems fine. I have made minor edits on the history a while back. Personally I would add/substitute some of the excellent photos just arrrived by Husond, which btw need adding to the palace page on Commons. His equivalent of the lead photo looks better than the existing one to me. Generally the usual Giano quality article. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all of Husond's new images will be added later today. Giano (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page now has more information and images than before. The image layout is not one commonly used but hopefully works on everyone's screen without making the page look odd or having to have a thumbnail gallery miles from the relevant text or worse still losing these great images from the page completely. Thanks to Yomangan for the layout. Giano (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very nicely laid out (as verified on two different screen resolutions), highly informative, well referenced and well written. The addition of the new photos enhances this article a great deal. Risker (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: Infoboxes are not mandatory for FAs or any article, bluifying red links is not necessary for FA status unless the absence of a link affects this article's comprehensiveness, and citation density is not a valid oppose. Some minor suggestions. Something is off in the final sentence (there's a weird minus at the end): The Palace of Queluz is one of Lisbon's many tourist attractions. {-} See also is actually a mixture of See also and External links: can those be sorted per WP:GTL? Some of the references need WP:DASH attention, example: Powell,Nicholas. (also a missing space there) (Sanssouci - pages 95 – 101), the first hyphen could become an emdash or a colon and the second endash should be unspaced. WP:MOS#Captions, punctuation on sentence fragments in image captions, example: Dom Pedro the builder of Queluz, and Queen Maria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand any of this endash busines, I've had a go, does anyone know how to do it? Giano (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me if you want a colon or emdash to separate Sanssouci from the page range, and I'll fix the rest for you, unless someone else has gotten to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference at all, they all look like -s to me. Giano (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll work on them, but I'll probably put a comma after the author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By chance, I've just been copyediting the references. Strictly speaking, the page ranges aren't needed in the reference list, only in the footnotes; but anyway, I've put them after the publisher details and put the chapter title in speech marks and the book title in Italics, as is done in some referencing formats. I've had to trash some of the the citation templates to make the editing more flexible. qp10qp (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article. I really enjoyed reading it because I know absolutely nothing about this palace, yet felt reliably informed. The writing and the photographs really brought the piece to life for me. And I know how hard it is to write dense architectural and decorative detail like this: you can't just summarise loosely, as in other types of article, because to miss something out may fuzz the information. Kudos to the editor.

I have only one complaint, which is that the sources used for the royal history are not really worthy of the article, in my opinion. The following passage struck me as confusing: Carlotta Joaquina's son King Miguel used the palace during the three-year civil war which he fought against his brother King Pedro IV, before being forced by his brother in 1834 to abdicate and go into exile. A year later, Pedro I died of tuberculosis at the age of 35 at Queluz, the palace of his birth. Pedro I's daughter Maria II ruled until her death in 1853 and was succeeded by her son Pedro V. Without more clarification, a reader who doesn't know the history of that family might find this Pedro-hopping incoherent. qp10qp (talk) 02:42, 20 December 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/Queluz_National_Palace&oldid=1138469510"