The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Vami IV ( talk · contribs) 15:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Initial Notes, 10/25/16
While the structure of the article is good, I find the organization slightly lackluster. Chiefly, what I refer to is the usage of certain dates (in this circumstance 1871) as landmarks in the history of a structure. I certainly do no doubt that something significant can happen to a structure at a certain point in time, like an explosion for example, but there seems to be no such significant event in the year 1871 for the Palais Rohan. Another immediate issue (to me) is that there seem to not be enough sources cited for large portions of the article. I bring this up because the relative shortage of citations can make what has been scribed here untrustworthy to those skeptical of Wikipedia (In my experience, it is never wrong to reuse a source 2-3 times). However, I do approve of the usage of Notes in the text, and found them to be mostly well sourced.
In my initial reading, I found the use of pictures in the article to be decent. However, I would encourage the spreading out of images across the article to give readers something to look at. And speaking of things to look at, the article is rather brief (The French article suffers from this as well). I have not yet made a single edit to this page, so I might not understand any herculean effort involved in the expansion of the page and research required thereof, but I would advise expanding the article were you can.
TL;DR version:
Sources, Citations: If at all possible, cite more sources. I implore you, substantiate as much of your writing as you can. Don't be afraid to reuse sources once, twice, or maybe thrice.
Article Structure: Develop this more. For starters, it is this editor's opinion that the division of the History section into Before and After 1871 is slothful (no offense to Edelseider). My personal advice is to break this up into the eras of regional history that Strasbourg (as the location of the palace) experienced. See Zagreb for a better example than I could describe. For something closer to the topic at hand, browse articles to similar structures (like the Palace of Versailles) and develop a kind of personal Manual of Style for a certain type of article.
Everywhere else, however, the article seems to hold up well for structure.
Illustration: The use of pictures on this page is very good. However, I would try to spruce up negative areas (like the History section) with pictures, preferably depictions of the palace from varying places in time or the like.
Length: I would try to expand this article wherever possible.
Official Review
Following my initial remarks, headaches with bots and templates, I have opted to do the more chaotic and/or messy thing and simply write here that I pass this article's bid for God Article status according to the instructions here and the criteria for a good article. My only note to make is add more citations. -- Vami IV ( talk) 21:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Non Nobus
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Vami IV ( talk · contribs) 15:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Initial Notes, 10/25/16
While the structure of the article is good, I find the organization slightly lackluster. Chiefly, what I refer to is the usage of certain dates (in this circumstance 1871) as landmarks in the history of a structure. I certainly do no doubt that something significant can happen to a structure at a certain point in time, like an explosion for example, but there seems to be no such significant event in the year 1871 for the Palais Rohan. Another immediate issue (to me) is that there seem to not be enough sources cited for large portions of the article. I bring this up because the relative shortage of citations can make what has been scribed here untrustworthy to those skeptical of Wikipedia (In my experience, it is never wrong to reuse a source 2-3 times). However, I do approve of the usage of Notes in the text, and found them to be mostly well sourced.
In my initial reading, I found the use of pictures in the article to be decent. However, I would encourage the spreading out of images across the article to give readers something to look at. And speaking of things to look at, the article is rather brief (The French article suffers from this as well). I have not yet made a single edit to this page, so I might not understand any herculean effort involved in the expansion of the page and research required thereof, but I would advise expanding the article were you can.
TL;DR version:
Sources, Citations: If at all possible, cite more sources. I implore you, substantiate as much of your writing as you can. Don't be afraid to reuse sources once, twice, or maybe thrice.
Article Structure: Develop this more. For starters, it is this editor's opinion that the division of the History section into Before and After 1871 is slothful (no offense to Edelseider). My personal advice is to break this up into the eras of regional history that Strasbourg (as the location of the palace) experienced. See Zagreb for a better example than I could describe. For something closer to the topic at hand, browse articles to similar structures (like the Palace of Versailles) and develop a kind of personal Manual of Style for a certain type of article.
Everywhere else, however, the article seems to hold up well for structure.
Illustration: The use of pictures on this page is very good. However, I would try to spruce up negative areas (like the History section) with pictures, preferably depictions of the palace from varying places in time or the like.
Length: I would try to expand this article wherever possible.
Official Review
Following my initial remarks, headaches with bots and templates, I have opted to do the more chaotic and/or messy thing and simply write here that I pass this article's bid for God Article status according to the instructions here and the criteria for a good article. My only note to make is add more citations. -- Vami IV ( talk) 21:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Non Nobus