Talk:Louvre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments
Louvre is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand History past the 19th century
  • Add more inline citations
  • Copy-edit the prose for grammar, style, and usage
  • Remove redundancy between the "Notable works" and "Notable paintings" sections
  • Add a description of the collection

Contents

[edit] Old commenrs

Perhaps I'm wrong, I value these pictures. Surely there are better one available that give more insight, particularly the exterior....DW

I rather like them. They show the architectural detail inside the building, and show its history as a royal palace. A nice outside overall shot would be nice too, of course. -- Tarquin
I've replaced the fireplace pics with three pics I took in 2001, one is an exterior as Tarquin suggested. The other two show a painting and a sculpture. I agree with DW, I believe that the majority of visitors to the Louvre article would be looking for a pic of the place itself and of some exhibits. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I!! -- Adrian Pingstone 08:49 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Some of the text at bottom overlaps with the picture caption at 800 x 600 resolution. What can be done to fix this? -- Lee M 02:28, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the following paragraph:

"I. M. Pei's glass pyramid entrance, 1985 - 1989, providing a modern entrance to the various museums, seems in retrospect to be the inevitable and perfect unobtrusive solution to an impossible design problem. It was highly controversial when it was built."

First - some clarification of the first sentence would be appreciated. What exactly was the design problem, and how was this pyramid the solution to it?

Second - I find a lack of objectivity in the description of the pyramid. "Inevitable"? What is that supposed to mean? "Perfect"? "Unobtrusive"? I have not been to the Louvre, but having seen the photo of the front entrance, I would argue that the pyramid is neither perfect nor unobtrusive. It appears to be a very fine structure in its own right - but, to my eye, it doesn't exactly fit seamlessly within the more classical surroundings.

I imagine that the controversy that existed when the pyramid was built remains with us to this day; a rewording to reflect both sides of the controversy might alleviate the problem with the paragraph's objectivity. --- TyroCat Nov. 7, 2004

Perhaps if "providing a modern entrance to the various museums" isn't expansive enough, you'd enlarge upon the "design problem" specifics for Wikipedia readers. Did you find better adjectives, perhaps from well-known figures, when you Googled the issue? Any assessment of esthetic success might be characterized as a "problem with objectivity." Did your reading find that the Wikipedia assessment is not a mainstream assessment, then? --Wetman 09:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The design problem was the following. Where do we put the new exhibit halls, the new storage facilities and the new labs? Where do we put the new entryway, given that the old one is insuffcient to handle crowdsThe Seine is behind the Louvre and untouchable buildings surround it. The problem was known and studied several generations ago and the solution was always the same: Dig up the central "Napoleon court", right where the pyramid is today. Yes, there was a controversy over the pyramid (back in 1985 when all these were still in planning) , but it was mainly because of the vast sums of money involved in this new structure. Some would have preferred that more money go into renovating the existing structures with only a little for some humbler new strutures. And of course there was the fact that Pei, the main architect was a foreigner! The fact that he was also a US citizen may or may not also have made things worse, depending on how badly an ungrateful (from the french point of view) Reagan administration was treating France during the many years that the controversy lasted in the late 1980s. The pyramid was an ideal solution becasue it was both transparent and reflective depending on lighting conditions, and this ambivalentce seduced president François Mitterrand and many other French intellectuals, including the future and after that actual presidentJacques Chirac. At least, they made a lot of it! You could see the old parts of the Louvre through it at times and at others it reflected cleanly the sky and the topp of the old parts. It was a perfect statement as an entry point to the Louvre. You could not miss the entrance, and this is a crucial design point. This will give you an idea of the former controversy: http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/documentation/photographie/expos/ciel_de_paris/louvretx.htm Take a look at this photo of the pyramid within the context of the buildings of the Louvre, instead of singled out. It shows you that all of the Louvre buildings around it are taller, and the new reflecting pools and fountains (sadly not impressive in this particular photo) surround it at the base, minimizing its impact. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/pei/louvre_rfo.jpg This one also gives a good idea of the sizes involved. http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~sedwards/photos/paris2002/Images/P3021302%20Louvre%20Pyramid.jpg And there is of course, the fact that since the Louvre surroinds the pyramid, it is invisible from all the other three sides: http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/fr/Louvre/Louvre.jpg I did a few searches and have not found any lingering dissatisfaction over the pyramid. I have found however a great deal of pride over the excellence of the French hi-tech construction techniques used and the French savoir faire in putting it all together without harming the old Louvre. --AlainV 11:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AlainV, your material perhaps should go at I. M. Pei, with a mention at Louvre that there is further material at the Pei entry? Then no one could have problems... though an anon. user now seems to have an issue with the Louvre being one of the "greatest" museums, and thinks that's a "weasel word"! --Wetman 15:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Notable art

This good subsection should be filled out, referring to "What links here" to include all Louvre works of art with their own entries at Wikipedia. "Your assignment, should you care to accept it..." --Wetman 16:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this the same museum by the name museum's Salle des Etats ?

[edit] Layout

A strip of illustrations down the right hand edge like a pane of postage stamps? This layout needs the elegant touch of that master of layout design, User:Duncharris. --Wetman 10:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think its pretty elegant right now. Its more elegant than your std. web page.--Muchosucko 1 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)

[edit] Axe historique

"Its central courtyard, now occupied by the Louvre glass pyramid, lies in the axis of the Champs-Élysées, and thus forms the nucleus from which the Axe historique springs." Anyone who has stood there knows this is not true. The Arc du Carrousel provides the pivot to the slightly off axes. The development of the "axe historique is discussed at Champs-Elysées. Anyone care to rethink this statement and give it a rewrite? --Wetman 04:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it's usefull to mention the axe historique (at least in the intro) as it confuses readers. I removed it in my rewrite of intro. --Julien 09:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures Removed

This article was perfectly fine before, and now all but one of the pictures were removed. What's the deal? -Devin

[edit] Ok, never mind

I guess the pictures were removed as a result of vandalism....my mistake. -Devin

[edit] Bleach and Lana - Missed Vandalism?

I have done a search through google, and cannot find any reference to Lana in the gallery containing the Mona Lisa, and also cannot find any reference to an incident involving bleach. Particularly the bleach incident I would expect to see as major news, and I certainly did not see any of that during my trip to the louvre last spring. IS this vandalism? If it is legitimate, "The most fantastic works of art" seems rather NPOV, especially since its talking about the louvre, which is full of MUCH MUCH better known works (since I havent even heard of Lana, if she is even there).

[edit] AID votes

[edit] Louvre (36 votes, stays until July 18)

Nominated May 9, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by July 18, 2006
Support
  1. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 22:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. PDXblazers 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Paul James Cowie 05:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Felixboy 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Steven 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. CrnaGora 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Okinawadude 16:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. RexNL 22:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Kimchi.sg 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Empty2005 13:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Duran 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Krytan 22:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. False Prophet 14:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. ❝Sverdrup❞ 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Fram 09:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Pedro 10:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Kristbg 15:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Silence 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Sam 18:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. C-squared 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Pruneau plum 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Blake's Star 14:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Valentinian (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Julien 22:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. --Gaius Julius Caesar 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Behind the veil 18:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Jazriel 09:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Peirigill 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Cribananda 02:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  32.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  34. —Mets501 (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  35. chemica 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  36. --SasaStefanovic • 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • As one of the most famous art museums today and historically speaking probably one of the most influential, this is one article I would very much like to see attain FA status. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 22:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely! The biggest museum in the world with some of the most important works of art in the history of man! Also, with the Da Vinci Code movie coming out soon, this page could see more hits. PDXblazers 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There are not any truly excellent pages for Art Museums. It would nice to set an example and create a model. Sam 18:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess we need a critical mass of people who can read French if we want to borrow from the French article. --chemica 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph

Recently there has been debate within the antiques industry regarding the provenance of a bronze monkey held in the Louvre initially believed to be the work of famous sculptor Giambologna. However, following the finding of two other bronze monkeys by British antique dealer Colin Wilson, the validity of the monkeys held in the Louvre, claimed by 'experts' to be the real work of Giambologna, has been called into question. The Louvre monkey is simply too deep to fit the niche in which it was supposedly situated on the fountain it was originally designed and created for. The quality of the monkey in the Louvre is also up for debate; the form is not lifelike, the fur is not realistic and the pose does not match the poses of the monkeys in the Uffizi drawing, which after all, is the only evidence for the monkeys being in the niches. Colin Wilson's monkeys, however, do match this drawing, are made of a gunmetal dated to the 16th/17th century, are unrefined and of a high lead content, all of which are traits of a work of Giambologna. Despite all this, plus a number of other reasons, speculations and facts, the debate rages on.

I have removed this paragraph from the main text and put it here, because I don't think this is a main aspoect of the Louvre. On the other hand, the info in it is interesting and should somewhere in Wikipedia be kept. Fram 08:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It think it should go into an article either about the sculptor or the artist. --chemica 18:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New image added

I think the new image I added is placed in an incorrect position, but I would still like it the article. Any thought? I think it adds different perspective.

I will check it. Ryūlóng 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks all right. Ryūlóng 22:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but I think it looks a bit crammed... i.e. too many photographs... Troubleshooter 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess you can't really go by me. My Screen resolution is 1920 x 1200. Ryūlóng 22:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice :) Troubleshooter 22:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

Very nice. This is a very important topic and you all have done a good job of doing it justice here, with a lot of detail, incredible pictures and good references. While I don't hesitate to promote this article to "good" status, but to be featured, you will need a lot more in-line references, and also I would expand it more, perhaps adding a section about famous curators and directors, day to day operations, educational outreach of the museum, etc.... I would say it needs more information on how it is a living museum, and not just about the building and the art. I would even say that would be mandatory, in my opinion, for it to get FA status. But overall, good job.--Esprit15d 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

An intiative was launched by a group of users involved in the development of the Good Articles project with the goal to ensure that all Good Articles are held to a high standard, and that all current Good Articles conform with the current quality criteria. This review has the aim to establish how well this article complies with them. They will be listed in italics, one by one, and review comments will be put below in normal type.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
It is comprehensible, but the prose is hardly compelling. Sentences like "J. A. du Cerceau also worked on the Louvre" or "Perrault had translated the Roman architect Vitruvius into French" are two examples from two ends of the spectrum of very un-encyclopedic style that can be found in the article. Another questionable sentence - "The Louvre holds works of art through till 1848". And there are more.
(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
The lead section is OK bar one thing (see below). The "Access" section is currently very short for its top-level caption and actually only refers to the Metro, linking to one Metro station as "Main article" (why not the other too?). "Notable works" and "notable paintings" sections duplicate each other at the moment. I would suggest combining both into some neat table or even a template. Modest use of non-top-level section captions.
(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline:
I am not an expert on that, and there are other, more important issues here, so excuse me for not reviewing the article thoroughly for that. Still, the "381 milimeters" is in bold type in the Pyramide Inversée section for no reason.
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
I believe quite a few more architectural/historic/art terms could be wikilinked. Examples: "palace of the arts", "edifice", "engraving". Whoever wrote the part on Perrault and Bernini clearly got carried away and wrote a commentary for an architectural album instead of an encyclopedic summary.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
Discussed below.
(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;
A total failure to conform with this criterion. Only three references in total, no other sources quoted. Third link is not appropriately described (no actual source or date given).
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
Those that are present seem OK to me, but they only exist for some more minor factoids.
(d) it contains no elements of original research.
Until inline citations appear in this article, almost everything could be original research. But the part on Perrault and Bernini reads very OR anyway.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
Absolutely no. The history of the building itself extends only to the late 19th century. There is precious little on the history of the collection and the museum itself as an institution. A description of the collection is missing too. The role in culture/literature is not discussed, only some minor trivia. All of of these could be good topics for entire articles, let alone sections of this article!
(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
As a pendant to the above, the section on the inverted pyramid, which is only moderately related to Louvre, is longer than on the proper Louvre Pyramid. The references to the DaVinci Code strike as being overly highlited (e.g. in the opening section) while so many other cultural references are missing.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
Again, Perrault and Bernini.
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
I don't think there are any mentioned, so no problems here.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

Edits are infrequent, and some vandalism seems purely random. Theoretically this shouldn't be a problem, though the article fails to meet other important criteria, so this is irrelevant anyway.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
Tags are OK, but the image in the infobox and the paintings in the gallery have no captions. The style of the captions is not consistent - some are normal type, some italicized, and the panoramas are tagged yet differently (perhaps there are technical limitations as to the latter).
(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
There is no section for such comments per se, so I'll mention it here that the choice and placement of images might not be the best - there are photos who show the Louvre Pyramid better in the Commons, and the panoramas break the text quite strangely. At the beginning of the "Construction and architecture" section photos appear both on the left and right, which "squeezes" the text considerably.

In view of all that, I have to delist. Overall, the article is clearly underdeveloped for the broad and interesting topic it should cover. I believe it is still quite far away from the stage at which it could be considered a good GA nominee. I can't think of a really superb example to follow, but the National Gallery, London article, even with all its deficiencies, appears to cover its subject much better. Bravada, talk - 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWII

There's nothing mentioned in the history section about WWII. Wouldn't the Nazis have wanted to cart some of the art back to Germany ? If they did, what happened ? If not, who stopped them ? I would have thought (ignoramus that I am) that this period in history was worth a note. Thanks--Ordew 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a mess!

Hi, this article is an absolute mess, I think it needs to be scrapped and completely overhauled.

Its appearance is ridiculous, where is the structure, extremely bad image placement, they don't even compliment the article.

The history section is a disaster, and it is full of conjecture and nonsense in places. In fact, this article is a like soap opera that would likely appear in tabloid newspapers and fan magazines.

Am I the only one who sees this?

How was this ever a Good Article, makes me laugh, and there is no way that this is even B standard.

Cheers --ImperialCollegeGrad 12:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to it and would help you out with it. To start with, some points for suggestions I am mentioning below.

  • More text less pictures, personally I am against galaries. Commons has many more pictures on Louvre and a reference to it should be enough.
  • Improving references and source information.
  • Copy editing the article. STTW (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] are you sure?

are you sure theres no more info on the pyramid? i need it badly.--Harlequin12 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] picture taking forbidden?

The citation for the assertion that picture taking is being gradually forbidden at the Louvre goes to a completely unrelated page on their website. Additionally, I was there a few months ago and picture taking was mostly not restricted, except for the crown jewels and the Mona Lisa, nor were those restrictions being enforced. Finally, I can't find anything on their site one way or another about photography. I'm going to remove this bit of information, but if someone can find a cite for this, or for it having been a policy that was later rescinded, or being introduced incredibly slowly, or something, please reinsert it. Natalie 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

and the louvre was what before it became a museum??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.220.79 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was at the special exhibition on Praxiteles a few months ago and got a curt pas de photo, though there were no signs up. I was surprised because I had never been scolded for taking photos in the Louvre before. So apparently with special exhibitions they have enforcement. Robert K S 05:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up/Citing

Hi, I'm hoping to do a little work adding some refs here and there to this article. Anyway, if anyone would like to do a little colloboration that'd be great. I also tagged the following as spam: "The architectural joint-venture team of SANAA of Tokyo and the New York-based IMREY CULBERT LP were awarded the project on September 26, 2005.SANAA, Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa with Tim Culbert and Celia Imrey / IMREY CULBERT LP [3]) SANAA is a widely recognized Japanese architectural firm, noted for its ethereal designs. IMREY CULBERT is a US/French architectural firm, specializing in museum and exhibit designs, with offices in New York and Paris. Tim Culbert, project architect that led the team's submission for the Louvre-Lens project, was previously an associate-partner of I.M. Pei, architect of the Pyramid of the Louvre." Lazulilasher (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding refs is essential, and you are doing a good thing here. Ditto on the spam. Do you happen to know what the word vaaol in the third sentence of the history section means? The link next to it goes to an article that is mostly in Turkish. I'm not sure it's helpful to link across languages in most cases, and this is one of them. Do you mind if I unlink that guy? Finetooth (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The table in Departments and collections has nine categories but only eight numbers. I didn't check the source. The numbers may change from year to year, not sure. Finetooth (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean about the article reading well for a ways and then not as well. I made a few minor copyediting changes yesterday, and I plan to go back today for another round. I don't have anything substantive to suggest at the moment. As with Franklin, I'm coming at this from a small information base. I set foot in the Louvre once. It's mighty impressive and not the sort of museum you can "do" in a single visit. Finetooth (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Great. I already see you digging into the text :) I'm adding new material and sources bit-by-bit. There's a plethora of material. Do you think I added too much to the section on the structure's history? Lazulilasher (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You didn't add too much to the History section. It's more interesting than some of the other sections. I'm pretty much finished with my low-level copyediting (fixing punctuation, adding conversion templates, adding the euro symbol, pouncing on misspellings and flipping them on their backs). I see problems with the bottom sections, which tend to degenerate into lists. For example, the list of directors seems oddly incomplete, though it may not be necessary to include such a list at all; the complete one might be truly dull reading. Maybe naming the first director and the current one would be enough or simply saying that the museum has had X directors in its history and that the current one is Y. The table of holdings is missing something. And so on. But those are the sections you haven't gotten to yet. How can I be of further help? Just let me know, and I'll try to accommodate. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(UNDENT #3) Glad you like the history section. It's honestly the part of the Louvre that fascinates me the most. I'm contemplating how we work with the bottom sections. I agree that the directors part seems a bit odd and out of place. I think it should be removed. Also, I was thinking that, maybe we create some sort of a seperate article about the Louvre's notable paintings and have more of a museum "overview" if you will. What do you think? Also, what do you think about removing some of the images? It seems a bit "gallery-ish"....let me know what you think...

ALSO! I'm going to move this discussion to the article's talk page so that other editors can join in the discussion if they happen to run into it...always looking for more colloborators! Lazulilasher (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MUSEUM has a lot of ideas and suggestions about museum articles, and it includes lists of ones that have made FA or GA. National Gallery, London might serve as a model. It emphasizes history and architecture and links to a separate article, National Gallery, London Collection Highlights to display a gallery of notable works. The layout of the top sections of National Gallery, London, is good; it spaces the illustrations nicely and uses a left-right approach rather than a right-side only approach. However, the bottom sections of the National Gallery article run into list and layout problems and aren't so nice to look at as the top sections. I think you're on the right track in emphasizing history and architecture and thinking that the gallery could be moved to its own page and perhaps expanded there and arranged differently. Finetooth (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I wish I'd thought of actually taking a look at WP:Museum...duh :) Taking a look now....Lazulilasher (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Btw, the National Gallery article is an EXCELLENT article! I am definitely going to use it for inspiration. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The Palazzo Pitti, an FA, describes each gallery in the museum in a general way without running long lists of contents or creating galleries of photos within the article. My general thought about photos is that they should illustrate some aspect of the main text and not be included mainly for their own sake. I prefer a maximum of one illustration (photo, map, drawing) per section, and I don't think galleries at the bottoms of articles are generally a good idea. Links to galleries on the Commons offer a better solution, as suggested by WP:LAY. If no such gallery already exists, it's possible to create one. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
(UNDENT) I agree completely. Actually, I'm a little intimidated by the gallery section and the numerous photographs. Thus, the reason they are still there :) Feel free to do what you think would be best--I trust your judgment. I would prefer less photos in this article as well--I would imagine/hope that many of the significant works/contributors would already have their own articles. What do you think we should do with the gallery? Remove it and link to Commons? As always, I attend your input. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I boldly removed the Gallery section. The Commons link in the External links section serves the same purpose without page clutter. We can always restore any particular ones, if any, that fit logically into sections that need illustration. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I added data to the visitor count citations. The Time for kids one is a bit out of date (2003) and includes museums other than art museums. Maybe we should replace it with a second reference to the Bloomberg.com article cited in the infobox. Also, I'm wondering about citation 4. Can all those references actually be to a single page? Finetooth (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No, they're not. I'm terrible about updating the page numbers. A lot of them are from the chapter about the French Revolution, which, surprisingly enough is not on page 1. I tend to create the reference the first time I use it and then not update it until way later. Which is probably horrible for anyone trying to follow the sources.....I'll update it tommorow. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Btw, I think reference #7 has the same problem....probably not all from the same page, either....:) Lazulilasher (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) and, as you've probably noticed, whilst I love research I am not the best at details....hence why your help is so appreciated :) Lazulilasher (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
For this article, I love working on the details and know next to nothing about the subject matter. This was also the case with Shackleton, which worked out fine. If you didn't do the research and writing, we would end up with nothing. :-) Finetooth (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map and text

I think the map is a good idea, but the text in that section needs to be longer for the layout to work. Perhaps we could add a bit more to the Location and access section. Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The map also demonstrates that the Louvre itself is not aligned on the axe historique, which is probably interesting only to about 15 people on the planet...but still....yep, expansion is required, perhaps mentioning arrondisement, proximity to Tuileries, the rue de rivoli, etc....I think I'm going to expand the infobox in a moment with a map I created for arrondisements....let me know what you think about it when it's done.Lazulilasher (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you mentioned the axe historique. It's mentioned and linked in the lead but doesn't seem to appear in the main text. It needs to be explained more fully, perhaps in the history section. And, yes, your ideas for expanding the Location section seem excellent. "Arrondisement" could be briefly explained and so could Tuileries for that matter. Expansion of the infobox is another excellent idea, and I'm glad to hear you are working on a map. Finetooth (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, I agree. There is a lot of room for expansion on this article. One thing tho--I've a tendency to get wordy (I just got knocked for that on an FAC), so slap me if the sentences start getting too long...hehe Lazulilasher (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I would never do that, but I see a non-sentence that needs fixing in the last paragraph of the "19th century after Napoleon" section. It begins right after the word "majolicas". I can't fix it because I can't be sure what you had in mind. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I notice now that in the first paragraph of the "History" section it now says: "his vaaol Mahmut Başar Özer"...which, I am am having difficulty attributing.....odd....Lazulilasher (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that a couple of days ago and wrote a note: "Do you happen to know what the word vaaol in the third sentence of the history section means? The link next to it goes to an article that is mostly in Turkish." Alas, I buried this note in the middle of something else above, and you probably never saw it. Finetooth (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, vaaol comment is gone....really, really odd....I mean, it clearly wasn't vandalism (or even a conscious edit). Must have been my inner Ataturk coming out. Anyway, I was wondering, what do you think the "Departments" section? I like it but at the same time, I worry about being redundant. Btw, I asked Frania to help us also, so hopefully he'll have some valuable insight as well. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I've been buried today in other things and neglected Louvre entirely today. I hope to get back to it at least briefly tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strange sentence

I'm just starting on the Departments section. I've made minor MOS tweaks only. I see a problem with this sentence in the Egyptian antiquities section: "In fact, Egyptian artifacts taken from the royal collections were displayed earlier and although the department was opened in 1826 following a decree by King Charles X who had been impressed by the collection of Jean-François Champollion, who was appointed director." I don't think this is actually a sentence, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Finetooth (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have equated "collection" and "department" in a sentence in the Islamic art section, but this might be a misunderstanding on my part. Is the collection the same as the department, or does "department" mean the people who manage the collection? Finetooth (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to look at the sentence after I eat something. I tend to write in lyrical style until it comes time for the copy edit. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been using "collection" and "department" interchangeably, although "department" is really just shorthand for "curatorial department" and "collection" could also be used to refer to the entire Louvre collection. So, my thinking goes that "department" could refer to only the actual people, but I think the more common usage is for the collection. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
We'll see how this reads after a bit of time passes. I did quite a bit of low-level editing this evening but must move on to other things. I will come back tomorrow. I removed the ref tag at the top of the article. The only section that is wholly unsourced is the Lens section, which will need some sources. I notice a few more citations in the Reference section that need more data or tweaks, and I will come back to that. I don't see anything disheartening. I like your new sections on the departments, and I don't think it's too much. We can always tighten a bit later if something strikes us as redundant. You are doing a great job, and the article is already much improved. I like your selection of images, by the way. Finetooth (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hehe...also, feel free to go through and change any images. I generally selected what I found the most aesthetically appealing. It's getting better, but the article still needs more work, IMO...btw, can you think of any significant issues which could be addressed? I would love to see more detail on the specific portions of the building and their history, i.e. the Cour Carree, Denon Wing, etc...but I just couldn't find enough reliable sources to do anything with it. I just get the feeling that there is something missing from the article and I can't quite put my finger on it....Lazulilasher (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations, re-write

I fixed a couple more citations this evening and rewrote the Abu Dhabi paragraph. The existing link to Time was dead, and the New York Times piece said almost the same thing. More tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Francs

The money quantities in the article are generally expressed in modern $US or euros; I've been converting and adding whichever of these two is missing and putting euros first. I don't know what to do with "135 pieces at a cost of 720,000 francs" in the Napoleon section because inflation would make that number bigger in today's francs and because francs are neither euros nor US$. It doesn't do the reader much good to know the 720,000 number without having something familiar to compare it to. Got any preferences about how to handle this? Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All of you work looks great so far. I am trying to create a location map for Paris that can be then used in the Museum infobox. Not as easy as I anticipated :( Lazulilasher (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Done...phew...that map was nuts...what do you think of it? The cool thing is that the map can be used in ANY article!!Lazulilasher (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Maps are tough. I'm trying to learn how to make river drainage area maps, and I can report only limited success so far. If you don't mind a suggestion, I think your Louvre location map could be improved by adding text identifying a couple of important landmarks. To do this effectively, you might need a larger base map, and I don't know where you can get one. It's hard to find base maps in the public domain. Maybe you could add text to those two big green areas, which I assume must be parks. An idea not requiring adding text to the map itself would be to include Boulevard Périphérique in the caption if you can find a way to make it fit. Maybe something like "Location in Paris, inside Boulevard Périphérique". Then Boulevard Périphérique could be added to the sentence in the lead that gives the location. This reminds me of something big: the lead needs to be completely re-worked to include a summary of the new material you've added, and the location text already in the existing lead could be cloned and expanded a bit in that stubby "Location and access" section that needs to be a bit bigger anyway to accommodate the other map, the Louvre layout map. Finetooth (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I hasten to add that the map you've made is an improvement. Finetooth (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Heheh...no worries. Actually, I'd love to use a larger map with substantial detail, but we're constrained by the tl:Infobox Museum (which is only editable by admins) and the tl:Location Map template which is the template that the Infobox Museum calls (in other words, I'm not able to change the Infobox Museum....). However, what I was thinking was that we create a second map, which would go into the location/access section. This map would include: 1.) metro detail and 2.) locale details....I was thinking of superimposing: map and map in order to provide a more "useful" image...what do you think?
Also, I couldn't agree more about the Lead. After expansion of the Location/Access section, we could then move the "Louvre Map" to the History section which speaks about architecture and names the wings/pavillons. This would also help illustrate the "Axe Historique". Let me know how this proposal sounds....Lazulilasher (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This all sounds good to me. I was wondering if the museum infobox had built-in provisions for a map. I thought maybe you had added the red dot parameters, and I was going to ask you how you did that. I didn't notice them the last time I looked, but they must have been there. Anyway, yes, your plans sound excellent. Meanwhile, I will go on tinkering with some other citations and see where that leads me. Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that the two map links above don't work when clicked. I'll see if I can figure out what's going on with them. Finetooth (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Paris_arr_jms.gif and Image:Paris_Metro_map_beschriftet.png. Ruhrfisch taught me this. You can link to images on the Commons without invoking them directly if you put an extra colon in front of the word "Image" in the link; e.g. :Image:Paris_arr_jms.gif Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
UNDENT Well, it was actually quite a learning process for me -- getting that map in there. The tl:infobox museum template only allows maps that are from tl:Location Map, so I had to create a Location Map for Paris (which, in and of itself, may turn out to be useful in other applications). The pointer thing is somehow done via the Location Map template. So, once I uploaded the image and found out the coordinates of the top, bottom, left, and right I could then just plug the Louvre's coords into the Infobox Museum template and it worked....only bad thing is that I don't think we can resize it. However, we can put a similar map, with more detail, elsewhere if you'd like....Thanks for the tip! I'm always messing up the links....Lazulilasher (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, and I thank you. Finetooth (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gadget

I hate to be a wet blanket, but I doubt that the Reference section gadget will survive any reviews. I haven't found anything yet in the MOS about it, but I've never seen an FA or GA with this device. My personal feeling is that it makes the references harder to edit because it interferes with checking the whole set at a glance for consistency. Finetooth (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, most likely you are correct. I added it after seeing it in an article. I'll go ahead and kill it. I'm just about done with a map. I'll upload it to commons in a moment and you can see how it fits. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look later this evening. I've got an odd schedule today full of non-Wikipedia things left and right. Every now and again I'm able to get on-line for a while. I see that somebody added another panorama to the page. Finetooth (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I like the panorama alot -- it's not a ridiculous size like the other two, plus it's very well done and aesthetically pleasing. I'm nervous about the map, I know you and Ruhrfish are like the Wiki-Map-Gods. Mine's not turning out as clearly as I would have liked, but I think it will be O.K. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, image has been added. I'm going to use the Louvre map that was there and reinsert it into a section about the Axe Historique (probably the most interesting article on en-Wiki). Btw, I've noticed that their is no article on the Tuileries Garden only a reference in the article about the Palace....so, I think we've got our next mission cut out....hehe Lazulilasher (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I'm barely out of kindergarten in map-making, but I like maps a lot. I like yours, both of them, and they are good additions to the page. As was the case with Shackleton, you are the content expert, and I am the assistant familiar with the dark arts of citations and comma splices. I think we make a good team doing it this way, and I'd be glad to help in the same way with the Tuileries Garden or other articles. I have one big project going on for which I'm the main writer, and it's nice to go back and forth between different jobs and roles. Finetooth (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly gained much respect for mapmakers after this small exercise. I think we make a good team, also. I enjoy research and searching Google Books for sources--plus, I like to see the article grow into something that (hopefully) someone will find useful. I'm gaining talent at copy-editing little by little, but detail is still not my best skill. If I may ask, what is your current project? I'm also trying to bring Pied-Noir up to FA from GA, but I've been doing that for months now. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You are a good researcher and writer; that makes the copyediting much more fun. My big project is Johnson Creek (Willamette River). It's gone from stub to GA, and I'm aiming for FA. I've been struggling with maps this week. I'd be happy to copyedit Pied-Noir if you like as soon as we get Louvre shipshape. Finetooth (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You know, I would appreciate the copy editing whenever you get the time. Talented copy-editors are in high demand here on en:wp, so I know your time is valuable. Really, I received comment on the withdrawn FAC for that article that the word count was presently 3,500 words and that it should be shortened to about 1,500...which is what I am trying to do. It hurts, though (however, the reviewer was correct--it was too detailed and contained numerous superfluous words). I am sure the Louvre has extra words, too....I've been putting off combing through the article with my scissors :) Lazulilasher (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble finding a source

I found a couple of English-language sources for the first paragraph of the Lens-Louvre material and the last two sentences (about the architects) of the second paragraph. I had to modify the first paragraph to fit the source, but I didn't have to change it a lot. I have been unable to find a source for the statistics in the first part of the second paragraph of this section, starting with "The new satellite museum, funded by the local regional government... " Maybe you can find one in French; that would be better than no source. Finetooth (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, to be honest, for some reason...I've saved the Louvre-Lens/Pyramide section for last--probably because it is the part that I know the least about. I am going to look for a source for the Lens--I'm sure there is something out there. Also, I haven't really edited the Lead yet--I like to leave it for the end, also, because that way you can see the main points of the article and provide a concise summary in the lead....I guess we're getting near the time to do it though. I'm not sure why, but I always dread the lead section. Also, you should know that when I first happened upon the page, it had a lot of spam/advertising for the architecture firm that built the Louvre-Lens/Pyramide--so, bear that in mind ;) Btw, your edits look great! Lazulilasher (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcophagus of a married couple

Is "Sarcophagus of a married couple" the same as Sarcophagus of the Spouses ?

I thought it was, and a redirect was needed, but on checking on the web I found reference to two very similar works.

But the Louvre site itself, at http://www.louvre.fr/llv/activite/detail_parcours.jsp?CURRENT_LLV_PARCOURS%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673416588&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673418994&CURRENT_LLV_CHEMINEMENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673418994&bmLocale=en shows info on one with a picture of the other.

Need an art expert to confirm/deny they are one and the same, and perhaps then a redirect (and a link from the Louvre article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing word

Something is missing from a sentence in the first section after the lead. "In 1546, removed the medieval keep... " lacks a subject. Finetooth (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple sentences further on I see, "Lescot also added a ceiling to Henry's royal chamber," but we don't yet know who Henry is. Finetooth (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
In "Decorative arts" I am troubled by two phrases. "... the Sauvageot donation expanded the department's holdings with nearly 1,500 works of faience and the medieval age" is missing something before "medieval age". The last sentence of this section mentions "the royal apartments", and I'm not sure what this means in context. Finetooth (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)