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

< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:05, 10 April 2006 editGiano (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users20,173 editsm →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:58, 13 April 2006 edit undoGhirlandajo (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers89,629 edits this page has it allNext edit →
Line 24:		Line 24:
	*At this point, still '''neutral''', tending to '''oppose''', I'm afraid. The prose is much, much better, but the organization is still confusing. If the entire article is about the palace (as opposed to the park, which now has its own article at ]), why is there a section called '''Sanssouci Palace'''? Why does the history start with '''Since the First World War'''? Since ] is a separate article, why isn't it summarized in a brief paragraph headed with {{tl\|main}}? And the '''See also''' section is way too long; anything already mentioned in the article should be removed, and a lot of things not already mentioned in the article probably could be instead. ] (] • ]) 08:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)		*At this point, still '''neutral''', tending to '''oppose''', I'm afraid. The prose is much, much better, but the organization is still confusing. If the entire article is about the palace (as opposed to the park, which now has its own article at ]), why is there a section called '''Sanssouci Palace'''? Why does the history start with '''Since the First World War'''? Since ] is a separate article, why isn't it summarized in a brief paragraph headed with {{tl\|main}}? And the '''See also''' section is way too long; anything already mentioned in the article should be removed, and a lot of things not already mentioned in the article probably could be instead. ] (] • ]) 08:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::*Thanks for the comments. I think I see what you mean - the title Sanssouci Palace section was, I agree, a misnomer, I have renamed it "Ethos of Sanssouci" (I hope somebody can think of a better title) the intention of that section is to give an overview of the palace's architectural ethos, and the way in which that reflected its utilisation by its successive owners. The section titled "Since the First World War" was not intended to be a history, but an account of what has happened since the fall of the monarchy. I've renamed it "Sanssouci in modern times" which is a little clumsy perhaps "Sanssouci today" would be better or even "After the Hohenzollerns"?. The page ] was removed from the original Sanssouci page. It does not need to be summarised as the relevant and important facts were extracted and incorporated in various other sections of the page as it exists now. This is the case also with many of the other sections which have disappeared. This was done to improve the flow, continuity and clarity of the existing paragraphs, so that the evolution of the palace could be in one section rather than scattered confusingly around the article. Regarding the "see also" section - following what I think is your sugestion, the list of pages pertaining more to ] has been moved there. I have tried to order the page in such a way that people can easily pick out just the parts that interest them, while still keeping a fairly long page interesting to the end. ] \| ] 11:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)		:::*Thanks for the comments. I think I see what you mean - the title Sanssouci Palace section was, I agree, a misnomer, I have renamed it "Ethos of Sanssouci" (I hope somebody can think of a better title) the intention of that section is to give an overview of the palace's architectural ethos, and the way in which that reflected its utilisation by its successive owners. The section titled "Since the First World War" was not intended to be a history, but an account of what has happened since the fall of the monarchy. I've renamed it "Sanssouci in modern times" which is a little clumsy perhaps "Sanssouci today" would be better or even "After the Hohenzollerns"?. The page ] was removed from the original Sanssouci page. It does not need to be summarised as the relevant and important facts were extracted and incorporated in various other sections of the page as it exists now. This is the case also with many of the other sections which have disappeared. This was done to improve the flow, continuity and clarity of the existing paragraphs, so that the evolution of the palace could be in one section rather than scattered confusingly around the article. Regarding the "see also" section - following what I think is your sugestion, the list of pages pertaining more to ] has been moved there. I have tried to order the page in such a way that people can easily pick out just the parts that interest them, while still keeping a fairly long page interesting to the end. ] \| ] 11:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. You can see the amount of work the editors put into this article. Angr's concerns are valid, but the page is still much, much better than most FA stuff I've seen recently. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:58, 13 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 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)My new comments are below. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ouch! - Try John Vanbrugh or Jonathan Wild or S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 -- ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  - I just read the opening paragraph of all three: the first two look okay, but the third has a red link right there in the lead, and uses the pretentious word "perish" where simple "die" would do. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    - That's because it was perishing at the North Pole (geddit?) Giano | talk 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      - Opinions on the the brilliantness of prose are like all opinions...every's got one and they rarely agree.Rlevse 19:30, 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)

~~This is a promising article. Does the nominator or authors plan to make any changes to help it through the FA process? Giano | talk 11:27, 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. --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)
~~Awesome job. Thanks so much. --Sam Blanning 13:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)~~
~~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? Giano | talk 13:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)~~ This page has now been heavily altered since its nomination. Giano | talk 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason why it shouldn't be. —Nightstallion (?) 09:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Support - after a significant amount of work from Giano and colleagues, this has matured nicely. (I have copyedited.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: they may be public domain, but aren't there a few too many images in the article? —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Support. I like it. —Nightstallion (?) 06:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Support. Giano is truly impressive, taking a good article to a new level. Good job to all. --Easter Monkey 06:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks EM that's kind, but I can't claim the credit for this one. trebor27 did the long and laborious translation with help and advice from Mmounties and Sam Blanning, and other editors too. This was very much a community project before I arrived very late on the scene. Giano | talk 07:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but I'll stick to my guns. Late to the scene, perhaps, but just in the nick of time. As a translator myself, I can tell you that it is indeed laborious at times, but the article has changed almost magically under your care. From an obviously German article in tone and grammar, to a very worthy English one. Don't be so modest. --Easter Monkey 07:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
At this point, still neutral, tending to oppose, I'm afraid. The prose is much, much better, but the organization is still confusing. If the entire article is about the palace (as opposed to the park, which now has its own article at Sanssouci Park), why is there a section called Sanssouci Palace? Why does the history start with Since the First World War? Since Sanssouci at the time of Frederick William IV is a separate article, why isn't it summarized in a brief paragraph headed with {{main}}? And the See also section is way too long; anything already mentioned in the article should be removed, and a lot of things not already mentioned in the article probably could be instead. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I think I see what you mean - the title Sanssouci Palace section was, I agree, a misnomer, I have renamed it "Ethos of Sanssouci" (I hope somebody can think of a better title) the intention of that section is to give an overview of the palace's architectural ethos, and the way in which that reflected its utilisation by its successive owners. The section titled "Since the First World War" was not intended to be a history, but an account of what has happened since the fall of the monarchy. I've renamed it "Sanssouci in modern times" which is a little clumsy perhaps "Sanssouci today" would be better or even "After the Hohenzollerns"?. The page Sanssouci at the time of Frederick William IV was removed from the original Sanssouci page. It does not need to be summarised as the relevant and important facts were extracted and incorporated in various other sections of the page as it exists now. This is the case also with many of the other sections which have disappeared. This was done to improve the flow, continuity and clarity of the existing paragraphs, so that the evolution of the palace could be in one section rather than scattered confusingly around the article. Regarding the "see also" section - following what I think is your sugestion, the list of pages pertaining more to Sanssouci Park has been moved there. I have tried to order the page in such a way that people can easily pick out just the parts that interest them, while still keeping a fairly long page interesting to the end. Giano | talk 11:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Support. You can see the amount of work the editors put into this article. Angr's concerns are valid, but the page is still much, much better than most FA stuff I've seen recently. --Ghirla 20:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:05, 10 April 2006 editGiano (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users20,173 editsm →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:58, 13 April 2006 edit undoGhirlandajo (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers89,629 edits this page has it allNext edit →
Line 24:		Line 24:
	*At this point, still '''neutral''', tending to '''oppose''', I'm afraid. The prose is much, much better, but the organization is still confusing. If the entire article is about the palace (as opposed to the park, which now has its own article at ]), why is there a section called '''Sanssouci Palace'''? Why does the history start with '''Since the First World War'''? Since ] is a separate article, why isn't it summarized in a brief paragraph headed with {{tl\|main}}? And the '''See also''' section is way too long; anything already mentioned in the article should be removed, and a lot of things not already mentioned in the article probably could be instead. ] (] • ]) 08:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)		*At this point, still '''neutral''', tending to '''oppose''', I'm afraid. The prose is much, much better, but the organization is still confusing. If the entire article is about the palace (as opposed to the park, which now has its own article at ]), why is there a section called '''Sanssouci Palace'''? Why does the history start with '''Since the First World War'''? Since ] is a separate article, why isn't it summarized in a brief paragraph headed with {{tl\|main}}? And the '''See also''' section is way too long; anything already mentioned in the article should be removed, and a lot of things not already mentioned in the article probably could be instead. ] (] • ]) 08:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::*Thanks for the comments. I think I see what you mean - the title Sanssouci Palace section was, I agree, a misnomer, I have renamed it "Ethos of Sanssouci" (I hope somebody can think of a better title) the intention of that section is to give an overview of the palace's architectural ethos, and the way in which that reflected its utilisation by its successive owners. The section titled "Since the First World War" was not intended to be a history, but an account of what has happened since the fall of the monarchy. I've renamed it "Sanssouci in modern times" which is a little clumsy perhaps "Sanssouci today" would be better or even "After the Hohenzollerns"?. The page ] was removed from the original Sanssouci page. It does not need to be summarised as the relevant and important facts were extracted and incorporated in various other sections of the page as it exists now. This is the case also with many of the other sections which have disappeared. This was done to improve the flow, continuity and clarity of the existing paragraphs, so that the evolution of the palace could be in one section rather than scattered confusingly around the article. Regarding the "see also" section - following what I think is your sugestion, the list of pages pertaining more to ] has been moved there. I have tried to order the page in such a way that people can easily pick out just the parts that interest them, while still keeping a fairly long page interesting to the end. ] \| ] 11:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)		:::*Thanks for the comments. I think I see what you mean - the title Sanssouci Palace section was, I agree, a misnomer, I have renamed it "Ethos of Sanssouci" (I hope somebody can think of a better title) the intention of that section is to give an overview of the palace's architectural ethos, and the way in which that reflected its utilisation by its successive owners. The section titled "Since the First World War" was not intended to be a history, but an account of what has happened since the fall of the monarchy. I've renamed it "Sanssouci in modern times" which is a little clumsy perhaps "Sanssouci today" would be better or even "After the Hohenzollerns"?. The page ] was removed from the original Sanssouci page. It does not need to be summarised as the relevant and important facts were extracted and incorporated in various other sections of the page as it exists now. This is the case also with many of the other sections which have disappeared. This was done to improve the flow, continuity and clarity of the existing paragraphs, so that the evolution of the palace could be in one section rather than scattered confusingly around the article. Regarding the "see also" section - following what I think is your sugestion, the list of pages pertaining more to ] has been moved there. I have tried to order the page in such a way that people can easily pick out just the parts that interest them, while still keeping a fairly long page interesting to the end. ] \| ] 11:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. You can see the amount of work the editors put into this article. Angr's concerns are valid, but the page is still much, much better than most FA stuff I've seen recently. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)