Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Sanssouci: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:26, 9 April 2006 editSamuel Blanning (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,108 edits awesome← Previous edit Revision as of 13:27, 9 April 2006 edit undoSamuel Blanning (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,108 editsm restoring order ot commentsNext edit →
Line 10: Line 10:
*<s>'''Object''': I hope to support this, but it needs a lot of work. The UNESCO quote does not need to be in the lead. The lead itself need to be much longer giving a brief history of the palace, it importance and some architectural details etc....All the facts and information are there which is a good start. Quite a lot of the text reads like a literal translation for example "''Sanssouci is not, as is usual in princely gardens, the centrepoint of the vineyard complex of which it is a part, but rather its crowning conclusion''", one paragraph begins "''The cheerfully playful picture on the garden side stands in ''" and many others in similar ilk. There is also much verbosity and unnecessary information, a room by room description of what was once there is unnecessary, as are such sentences as "''Five guest rooms adjoined the marble hall to the west. It is not exactly known who over the decades enjoyed the privilege of being allowed to live in Sanssouci''". If it's not known don't bother to say it, this is an encyclopedia article not a book. The map needs to be made more of - perhaps with the various buildings being keyed into it (see: ]). Are the pictures of the slippers really necessary?...There are many important names and subjects not linked. "Princely" seems to be an overused adjective. There are a few one line, one sentence paragraphs which must go. In short a large copyedit is needed. The architecture section needs to come earlier. Often many words are used to describe a single architectural feature which just need to be given its name. What exactly is a "flat gabled roof" a roof is either flat or gabled it cannot be both. Having said all that the page could become a FA but needs hours/days of work. ] | ] 15:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC) *<s>'''Object''': I hope to support this, but it needs a lot of work. The UNESCO quote does not need to be in the lead. The lead itself need to be much longer giving a brief history of the palace, it importance and some architectural details etc....All the facts and information are there which is a good start. Quite a lot of the text reads like a literal translation for example "''Sanssouci is not, as is usual in princely gardens, the centrepoint of the vineyard complex of which it is a part, but rather its crowning conclusion''", one paragraph begins "''The cheerfully playful picture on the garden side stands in ''" and many others in similar ilk. There is also much verbosity and unnecessary information, a room by room description of what was once there is unnecessary, as are such sentences as "''Five guest rooms adjoined the marble hall to the west. It is not exactly known who over the decades enjoyed the privilege of being allowed to live in Sanssouci''". If it's not known don't bother to say it, this is an encyclopedia article not a book. The map needs to be made more of - perhaps with the various buildings being keyed into it (see: ]). Are the pictures of the slippers really necessary?...There are many important names and subjects not linked. "Princely" seems to be an overused adjective. There are a few one line, one sentence paragraphs which must go. In short a large copyedit is needed. The architecture section needs to come earlier. Often many words are used to describe a single architectural feature which just need to be given its name. What exactly is a "flat gabled roof" a roof is either flat or gabled it cannot be both. Having said all that the page could become a FA but needs hours/days of work. ] | ] 15:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
::*<s>This is a promising article. Does the nominator or authors plan to make any changes to help it through the FA process? ] | ] 11:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)</s> ::*<s>This is a promising article. Does the nominator or authors plan to make any changes to help it through the FA process? ] | ] 11:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)</s>
*I have been too involved in the recent edits to this page to be able to honourably vote support, but I can withdraw my oppose now. I feel it is an excellent article, which meets all criteria. I can see no reason why this should not be become an FA now.] | ] 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
:*Awesome job. Thanks so much. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
:::*Personally, I was going to try overhauling it in line with the suggestions here at some point, but probably not in time for this FAC to succeed. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :::*Personally, I was going to try overhauling it in line with the suggestions here at some point, but probably not in time for this FAC to succeed. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
::::I'll do what I can before I have to go on break for about 2 weeks for a move cross country (after 4/6). After that I'll be able to help again and will gladly do so. --] (<small>]</small>) ] 20:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC) ::::I'll do what I can before I have to go on break for about 2 weeks for a move cross country (after 4/6). After that I'll be able to help again and will gladly do so. --] (<small>]</small>) ] 20:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
*I have been too involved in the recent edits to this page to be able to honourably vote support, but I can withdraw my oppose now. I feel it is an excellent article, which meets all criteria. I can see no reason why this should not be become an FA now.] | ] 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

:*Awesome job. Thanks so much. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
*<s>This article is now undergoing a major overhaul and edit. Can this FAC be postponed and the article re-submitted in a few weeks - is that allowed? ] | ] 13:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)</s> This page has now been heavily altered since its nomination. ] | ] 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC) *<s>This article is now undergoing a major overhaul and edit. Can this FAC be postponed and the article re-submitted in a few weeks - is that allowed? ] | ] 13:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)</s> This page has now been heavily altered since its nomination. ] | ] 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
*:I see no reason why it shouldn't be. &mdash;]<font color="green">]</font>] ] <sup>]</sup> 09:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC) *:I see no reason why it shouldn't be. &mdash;]<font color="green">]</font>] ] <sup>]</sup> 09:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:27, 9 April 2006

Sanssouci

Article on the World Heritage Site palace and grounds in Potsdam, Germany. This is an interesting, comprehensive and well-referenced article with a good number of excellent pictures. Already a featured article at deWiki. The article is complemented by the separate articles on the numerous architectural features around the palace grounds (see the "Other buildings in Sanssouci Park" section) which are also richly detailed.

This is a partial self-nom - while I had nothing to do with the original article or its translation, I did help in translating the supporting articles, overhauling the references and a few other wording changes. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral for now. The prose is far from brilliant, but then it usually is in Featured Articles. (I can't remember the last time I read a Featured Article that was actually well written.) I'll see if I have time to clean it up some, or if someone else does; then I'd be willing to support. Angr (talkcontribs) 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: I hope to support this, but it needs a lot of work. The UNESCO quote does not need to be in the lead. The lead itself need to be much longer giving a brief history of the palace, it importance and some architectural details etc....All the facts and information are there which is a good start. Quite a lot of the text reads like a literal translation for example "Sanssouci is not, as is usual in princely gardens, the centrepoint of the vineyard complex of which it is a part, but rather its crowning conclusion", one paragraph begins "The cheerfully playful picture on the garden side stands in " and many others in similar ilk. There is also much verbosity and unnecessary information, a room by room description of what was once there is unnecessary, as are such sentences as "Five guest rooms adjoined the marble hall to the west. It is not exactly known who over the decades enjoyed the privilege of being allowed to live in Sanssouci". If it's not known don't bother to say it, this is an encyclopedia article not a book. The map needs to be made more of - perhaps with the various buildings being keyed into it (see: Windsor Castle). Are the pictures of the slippers really necessary?...There are many important names and subjects not linked. "Princely" seems to be an overused adjective. There are a few one line, one sentence paragraphs which must go. In short a large copyedit is needed. The architecture section needs to come earlier. Often many words are used to describe a single architectural feature which just need to be given its name. What exactly is a "flat gabled roof" a roof is either flat or gabled it cannot be both. Having said all that the page could become a FA but needs hours/days of work. Giano | talk 15:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I was going to try overhauling it in line with the suggestions here at some point, but probably not in time for this FAC to succeed. --Sam Blanning 11:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll do what I can before I have to go on break for about 2 weeks for a move cross country (after 4/6). After that I'll be able to help again and will gladly do so. --Mmounties (Talk) 20:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have been too involved in the recent edits to this page to be able to honourably vote support, but I can withdraw my oppose now. I feel it is an excellent article, which meets all criteria. I can see no reason why this should not be become an FA now.Giano | talk 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)