Talk:Bruchsal Palace

Bruchsal Palace was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 16, 2018	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 5, 2017.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 18th-century Schloss Bruchsal (pictured) in southwest Germany contains an elaborate Baroque staircase that has been described as "ingenious and ravishing"?

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Schloss Bruchsal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mdob (talk · contribs) 18:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria[edit]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

first two paragraphs (before the contents) are short and to the point. Mdob (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

6 small, non-intrusive images, including one panorama. Mdob (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

@Mdob and Prioryman: Hello! What is the status of this review? Doesn't look like any progress has been made in almost 2 months.--Dom497 (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second reviewer[edit]

I'll pick up this review, per a request on my talk page. I should be able to get to it in the next couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a requirement for GA, but it would be good to include an image of the palace ruins after World War II. I would think a fair use claim would work.
We have "Zick and Balthasar Neumann, the main designer of the corp de logis", but later "The main part of the building was designed by Baron Anselm von Grünstein": aren't these in conflict? You do say Balthasar took over as Chief Engineer and constructed the staircase, but that's not the same as saying he took over as designer.
It was created to resolve an architectural conundrum created by von Schönborn's late decision to add a mezzanine floor to the corp de logis: two uses of "created" in close succession; can we rephrase?

That's all I can find; the article is in excellent shape. The sources look OK, though I see many of them are tourist guides rather than specialist publications: in case you are considering taking this to FAC, I would suggest looking at the German version of the article, which lists several sources that appear to cover the palace complex in detail in the "Literatur" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman: Just realized I had not pinged you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman:I'll leave this another week, and will have to fail this if there's no response. I could fix the "created" point myself, but I think the question about Balthasar will require access to the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, unfortunately Prioryman's most recent Wikipedia edit was on March 27, so after so long an absence I rather doubt he's going to be replying to this review, especially since he was pinged on his talk page over two weeks ago. I think you're going to have to fail this. I apologize for not having checked his activity level before I asked you to take over the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Failing for lack of response to the issues raised. Prioryman, if you return and fix these points and renominate, I'll be glad to give it a quick review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]