Alright, there's a lot of stuff to cover...so this isn't going to be short:
Put the "Plan of the chateau of Versailles" image (the first image of the article) somewhere else - it is common on Wikipedia for infoboxes to always go right at the top, next to the lead paragraphs.
The lead needs to be re-written from scratch. It should be two-three paragraphs long, and fully summarize the article. See
WP:LEAD. Always start with the Article title. For example: "The Gardens of Versailles were..."
I also suggest you do not put a wiki-link in the article title in the lead. So, "Gardens of Versailles" instead of "Gardens of
Versailles".
The writing style seems odd at first. "This discussion will address the history and evolution of the gardens starting with Louis XIII and ending with the present day." - Is this a discussion? I thought it was an encyclopedic article. This sort of writing sounds like something that would belong in an essay.
The article is under-linked throughout. Names of people should be linked using the standard [[ and ]] brackets.
Avoid using lists. Instead, use prose. For example: "first, second, first" instead of a list of those three items.
Please see
Wikipedia:Lists for the correct usage of lists. The sub-sections in your article "Parterre d’Eau" and "Perfection of the Bosquets" are incorrect ways of using lists.
Don't link words in section headers. (I'm referring to the section titled "The July Monarchy; The Second Empire")
You have too many sections that have only 2-3 sentences. Please reorganize your section headers to ensure paragraphing is neat and collective instead of sparse.
Avoid squashing text between images (as you have done in the sub-section Case of the ‘Apollo Perigrinator’). Keep all images in a section on one side of the article (right, or left). Please see
Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Images.
Most of the sub-sections under "Bosquets and the Case of the ‘Apollo Perigrinator’" are just lists. Convert to paragraphs to improve flow and provide additional context to the reader.
I would say the article has too many images. Remove them wisely to improve the layout. People come to Wikipedia for real information - not just a bunch of pictures.
The "Sources" list is useless as it stands. Is this Further reading, or are these real references you have used? Please title the section accordingly. (Either "Further reading" or "References")
But most importantly: reference everything. As I said, every paragraph needs at least one footnote. When this ends up at
WP:FAC, this article will get nowhere unless it is properly referenced.
Once you have done all of this, submit to
WP:GA instead of
WP:FA at first - a GA reviewer might give you even more feedback. GA is the second step to featured article status after a peer review.
I hope my feedback helps. I have focused on article layout, references and the images. I have not focused on the grammar, punctuation, and quality of text.
—
Wackymacs (
talk)
18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Ruhrfisch comment: It is often useful to have a model article to follow for style, references, structure, etc. I note that
York Museum Gardens is a Good Article and may be a useful model. There are some palace GA and FA articles too that have sections on their gardens -
Buckingham Palace is FA.
Ruhrfisch><>°°21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Alright, there's a lot of stuff to cover...so this isn't going to be short:
Put the "Plan of the chateau of Versailles" image (the first image of the article) somewhere else - it is common on Wikipedia for infoboxes to always go right at the top, next to the lead paragraphs.
The lead needs to be re-written from scratch. It should be two-three paragraphs long, and fully summarize the article. See
WP:LEAD. Always start with the Article title. For example: "The Gardens of Versailles were..."
I also suggest you do not put a wiki-link in the article title in the lead. So, "Gardens of Versailles" instead of "Gardens of
Versailles".
The writing style seems odd at first. "This discussion will address the history and evolution of the gardens starting with Louis XIII and ending with the present day." - Is this a discussion? I thought it was an encyclopedic article. This sort of writing sounds like something that would belong in an essay.
The article is under-linked throughout. Names of people should be linked using the standard [[ and ]] brackets.
Avoid using lists. Instead, use prose. For example: "first, second, first" instead of a list of those three items.
Please see
Wikipedia:Lists for the correct usage of lists. The sub-sections in your article "Parterre d’Eau" and "Perfection of the Bosquets" are incorrect ways of using lists.
Don't link words in section headers. (I'm referring to the section titled "The July Monarchy; The Second Empire")
You have too many sections that have only 2-3 sentences. Please reorganize your section headers to ensure paragraphing is neat and collective instead of sparse.
Avoid squashing text between images (as you have done in the sub-section Case of the ‘Apollo Perigrinator’). Keep all images in a section on one side of the article (right, or left). Please see
Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Images.
Most of the sub-sections under "Bosquets and the Case of the ‘Apollo Perigrinator’" are just lists. Convert to paragraphs to improve flow and provide additional context to the reader.
I would say the article has too many images. Remove them wisely to improve the layout. People come to Wikipedia for real information - not just a bunch of pictures.
The "Sources" list is useless as it stands. Is this Further reading, or are these real references you have used? Please title the section accordingly. (Either "Further reading" or "References")
But most importantly: reference everything. As I said, every paragraph needs at least one footnote. When this ends up at
WP:FAC, this article will get nowhere unless it is properly referenced.
Once you have done all of this, submit to
WP:GA instead of
WP:FA at first - a GA reviewer might give you even more feedback. GA is the second step to featured article status after a peer review.
I hope my feedback helps. I have focused on article layout, references and the images. I have not focused on the grammar, punctuation, and quality of text.
—
Wackymacs (
talk)
18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Ruhrfisch comment: It is often useful to have a model article to follow for style, references, structure, etc. I note that
York Museum Gardens is a Good Article and may be a useful model. There are some palace GA and FA articles too that have sections on their gardens -
Buckingham Palace is FA.
Ruhrfisch><>°°21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)reply