Talk:Ludwigsburg Palace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleLudwigsburg Palace is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 18, 2019, and will appear again on June 1, 2024.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 2, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
August 1, 2018Good article nomineeListed
August 29, 2018Peer reviewNot reviewed
October 1, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 26, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 24, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Ludwigsburg Palace (pictured), the "Versailles of Swabia", was home to four of Württemberg's rulers?
Current status: Featured article

Size claim[edit]

It is really larger than the Wurzburg Residenz? The photos don't really support the claim imo. If so on what criteria, as comparing the size of buildings is not a straighforward matter. Hawkestone 11:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If You are refering to "the largest palatial estate in the country" - Yes, because the estate also includes the gardens... 32ha (incl. gardens) to 14,77 ha! 80.151.9.187 (talk)

Resources[edit]

Compiling a tank of useful links for use on this article here.

Casanova at Ludwigsburg

  1. Aus dem Sumpf zur Residenzstadt
  2. Sex, Stars und große Oper
  3. Italiener bringt Glanz nach Ludwigsburg
  4. Music in European Capitals: The Galant Style, 1720-1780

–Vami_IV✠ 03:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useful for future updates

  1. Stuttgarter Nachrichten - Ludwigsburg

–Vami_IV✠ 03:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burial sites of the House of Beauharnais[edit]

It is cateogorised as being in this category but there is no mentioning of Beauharnais in the text! 80.151.9.187 (talk)

Venetian fair[edit]

Archived. –Vami_IV✠ 06:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ludwigsburg Palace/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 11:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Reviewing as requested.😁

Introduction and limitations[edit]

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject. So I am reviewing this as an outsider.

Overview[edit]

This article has obviously been a huge undertaking by someone fascinated by the subject. The main contributor and nominator has assessed the article himself at level B—this appears warranted (though normally another editor would have to do this assessment).

1. Prose:
  • No copyright violations.
  • Well-written and interesting. Reads a bit rough at times though, though not too often. Below I will do a detailed review.
2. MOS:
  • Though not required for GA, it seems a bit unusual to me that the article has no infobox.
  • What is required for GA is that external links should contain a short description (e.g. "An informative website outlining the basics ...")
3. References layout: There are some dead links, which you might want to replace, or mark as {{dead link}}. References can be identified though, as they are well-formatted. Some references such as Littell's book are not actually used in the article and had best be removed from the reference list.
4. Reliable sources: Sources are reliable.
5. Original research: None found.
6. Broadness: Yes.
7. Focus: Readable prose size is 69 kB, which is larger than usual for a Wikipedia article. Please trim certain less relevant parts of the article. Some guidelines such as WP:SPLITTING suggest a 50 kB maximum for general subject matter.
8. Neutral: Yes.
9. Stable: article is stable.
10-11. Pics: Are relevant.

Reviewee checklist[edit]

  1. w00t
  2. Originally, I used an infobox and was a straight-laced infobox crusader. But after studying FA-quality Historic Houses articles, I decided that no infobox would look more aesthetically pleasing and fitted the context as a country palace...inside a city. Huh.
What suits you.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added collapsible infobox and axed "Location." Result: Less prose, infobox. –Vami_IV✠ 08:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2.1. Added an External links section as mandated by the Manual of Style. –Vami_IV✠ 15:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dammit, I thought I got all those when I reformatted the Schloss Favorite section and rewrote the garden one. I'll post an update here when I kill or tag the remaining ones.
3.1  Done Fixed all but one of these, axed the one I couldn't. –Vami_IV✠ 07:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. Glad to hear it
5. w00t
6. Yeah, about that...
7. There will probably be a lot of fluff-shaving in this review.
Indeed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8. w00t
9. huh
10–11. But unfortunately not always of the highest quality or of interesting parts, like the Marble Hall.
10.1. I apparently goofed the syntax for that template - the caption exists now! The ending panorama was taken from the German version of the article. I thought it was too good to not use and formed a nice transitional piece of eye candy to separate prose and eye-meltingly long citation and reference section.
10.2. Thanks!
10.3. No. I will do my best to find out. The "source," the tumblr blog I got it from, posted neither.
10.4. Found it.
  • So what is the year? Please add it to the original picture page on Commons, because it pertains to lapse of copyright.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Overlooked.[reply]
10.5. Ahhh crap. I'll probably just remove the picture because uploading pictures to Wikipedia/Commons scares and confuses me.

X –Vami_IV✠ 15:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review per section[edit]

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like  Done,  Doing...,  Not done, minus Removed, plus Added, and  Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.

Location[edit]

  • Although the Marchbacher Straße forms the northern edge of the primary palace, Schloss Favorite lies to its north. How does this contradict?
    •  Done Reduced to The Marchbacher Straße forms the northern edge of the residential palace grounds. –Vami_IV✠ 13:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latitudinal and longitudinal location of the palace proper is 48°54′0″N 9°11′45″ECoordinates: 48°54′0″N 9°11′45″E, or 48.9, 9.195833. Redundant, already mentioned in the hat.
Right, axed. –Vami_IV✠ 04:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

  • tasked his then court architect Matthias Weiss, a military architect, with the construction of a new lustschloss ... at the same location?
  • began constructing a simple three-story manor, whose cornerstone was laid down by the Duke himself, but was interrupted whose refers to the manor, but was interrupted refers to the construction process. Please simplify sentence.
    •  Done Axed the cornerstone part and the word "simple."
  • Dreaming of an absolutist Württemberg Try to avoid wikilinks from being right next to each other without any punctuation to separate them. See Wikipedia:SEAOFBLUE.
  • the building of this city Where does this city refer to?
    •  Done Changed "this city" to "a city." –Vami_IV✠ 14:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was assured by, Further incentives were made By who?
    •  Done Name-dropped the Duke in the sentence, made from the original two. –Vami_IV✠ 14:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Construction[edit]

  • Duke Eberhard Louis elected to send theologian and mathematician Philipp Joseph Jenisch ... Shouldn't this be "... elected theologian ..."?
    •  Done Replaced with "sent." –Vami_IV✠ 03:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nette completed the shell of the Old Hauptbau in 1708, the galleries in 1707, ... Shouldn't this be told chronologically?
    •  Done
  • but also in the populace Split off in a separate sentence, because it is confusing.
    •  Done
  • while the Ordensbau and the Riesenbau were constructed from 1708 to 1713 ... Better stick to active voice to make clear who did what.
(This Nette guy is really a sad story, by the way.)
*  Done Amended. –Vami_IV✠ 05:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to have been done? Absorbing the work of Weiss and Jenisch, the Ordensbau was constructed from 1709 to 1713 and the Riesenbau from 1712 and into the next year.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done x2. Added absorbing Weiss and Jenisch's lustschloss –Vami_IV✠ 04:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You prefer not to use active voice?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jenisch sought to reprise his position as building director following Nette's death, but he faced competition from one of Nette's recruits. Donato Frisoni, an Italian plasterer from Laino with no formal architectural training, submitted an application for the position that was ignored by the building authority, as it was aligned with Jenisch. This is a bit confusing because it seems that Donato Frisoni is the person where one of Nette's recruits refers to. Then when the reader is at the end of this part, it seems as though Donato Frisoni was the indirect way in which Jenisch sought to reprise his position. Is that what you mean? If not, please rewrite a bit.
    •  Done That is what I meant, but I rewrote it anyways. –Vami_IV✠ 06:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frisoni based his plans ... Lots of and ... and ... and. Split a bit please.
    •  Done
  • Kavaliersbaut Wikilink or define inline please.
    •  Done
  • Is it possible to move the floor plan upward to this section, so readers can understand which part of the building is where?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would fit. I could provide a link to that subsection for ease of reading, though. –Vami_IV✠ 07:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map has been moved to "History." –Vami_IV✠ 00:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use as a residence[edit]

  • dismissed the construction staff to modernize the Duchy's army and fortifications You mean replaced them?
    • Nope; they were sacked. Hopefully the rewrite better conveys this. –Vami_IV✠ 06:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • on fraudulent charges of embezzlement as a retaliation against the years of competition at court. They competed with Karl Alexander?
  • The Duke's unpopular court Jew, ... How is this related to the subject of the article?
    •  Done Axed the entire section. –Vami_IV✠ 06:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • as he began residing ... You mean the architect?
    •  Done
  • making no more modifications to the palace from 1770 onward You mean the Ludwigsburg Palace?
    •  Done
  • The palace again relinquished its status as the Duke's residence to Stuttgart in 1775 When was the first time?
    • Karl Alexander moved the capital to Stuttgart in 1733. "Use as a residence," paragraph one, sentence two. –Vami_IV✠ 06:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me my ignorance, but obtaining or relinquishing the status of Duke's residence is the same as the status of capital, right?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the Duke couldn't live in two cities at the same time. Eberhard Louis spent his summers at Ludwigsburg, but he established the city as the capital of the Duchy in 1718 ("Background," last sentence of paragraph two). It remained the capital until Karl Alexander moved it back to Stuttgart in 1733, then his son Charles returned it to Ludwigsburg for another 20 or so years before ermanently establishing himself in Stuttgart in the 1770s. –Vami_IV✠ 19:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He disliked the Baroque interiors and Goethe described them as "in bad taste." How is this relevant?
  • King William I Was he the successor of Frederick I? Please introduce him a bit.
    •  Done I didn't add much, but now the reader knows that William I was Frederick's son and heir. –Vami_IV✠ 06:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Later history[edit]

  • Isn't this a subsection of the history section?
  • In 1918, after the First World War ... Sentence too long, please trim.
  • that continue to the modern day Specify time period per WP:WTW.
  • series of music festivals ... conducted anywhere from six to ten concerts Festivals don't conduct concerts, please rewrite.
  •  Done Wound up rewriting the whole paragraph –Vami_IV✠ 22:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1991, the decision was made as the state archives left Ludwigsburg to turn the palace as a museum complex was made because the 1959 "Höfische Baroque Art" Museum housed at the palace Cryptic, please rewrite.
  •  Done Rereading that made my head hurt. –Vami_IV✠ 23:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the group Ulm Klötzlebauer Confusing wikilink of the place, better remove and perhaps redlink the entire name.
  •  Done
  • What's Kinderreich?
  • Editz Sitzmann visited the palace to see the painting and restored piece of King Frederick I's furniture and to attend a press conference, speaking about the cultural important of Ludwigsburg Palace First of all, the grammar of the sentence is odd, especially the underlined parts. Secondly, it reads as though the furniture was restored during her visit.
  • Also in November, on the nights of the 16th and 17th ... The Afterlove Tour This part is less relevant, maybe just briefly mention that there are concerts of notable singers or something along those lines. Same holds for last paragraph: summarize please.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Porcelain manufactory[edit]

This section is better written than the previous section.

  • to place pressure on the Handelscompagnie You mean he set up a competing group, right?
  • who worked at the Ludwigsburg Porcelain Manufactory for 20 years ... who would work?
  •  Done
  • of Meissen's manufactory Not quite sure where this refers to.
  • Since 1780, designs had begun moving You mean in the porcelain industry, or do you refer to the manufactory?

Architecture[edit]

How did you determine what part is history and what part is architecture? The section reads much like a history section.

I figured it was an architectural history, but it's still history. I've abbreviated that history into the new second paragraph now. –Vami_IV✠ 14:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • at previous projects.[c] Try to avoid hiding citations in notes. Better show the citations inline as well.
  •  Done Citation now located in front of that note. –Vami_IV✠ 23:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't retrace it, so I understand that you have deleted the note entirely.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An example of this influence ... Three and's in a row. Please simplify or split off.
  • The interiors are a mix of different Late Baroque influences, with illustrations by Paul Decker the Elder, Nicodemus Tessin the Elder, and Daniel Marot, whose work Duke Eberhard Louis was familiar with, that bear some resemblance to Ludwigsburg's ribbonwork (Bandlwerkstil) decor. Confusing, please simplify.
  • Placed in parentheses (I try to avoid that in my writing because I'm used to abusing them) –Vami_IV✠ 23:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Actually fixed this time. –Vami_IV✠ 23:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neoclassical of Ludwigsburg Did you omit a word here?
  •  Done I think I've fixed it now. –Vami_IV✠ 14:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The kitchen staff, also responsible for the lighting and heating of the palace,[2] fed the stoves and fireplaces of the palatial suites with wood brought from the Black Forest, which also warmed the servant quarters in the attic via ducts from the stoves below. Beyond thickening the windows with more glass and putting up cotton wallpaper, residents of the palace resorted to wearing thicker clothes and consuming warm drinks, primarily coffee and hot chocolate.[3] How is this relevant?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wenger 2004, pp. 9–10.
  2. ^ Ludwigsburg Palace: Alltag in der Hofküche.
  3. ^ Ludwigsburg Palace: Heizen im Schloss.

Old Hauptbau[edit]

This section is generally well-written.

  • Just a note: that hidden staircase to a secret lover is hilarious. There's your DYK, by the way.
  • Today, Eberhard Louis's suite appears as it would have during his reign and though none of the original decor survives seem to contradict. Am I missing something?
  •  Done Yes and no, but I think I fixed the issue. –Vami_IV✠ 23:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of Donato Frisoni and Tomasso Soldati's stuccoes, depicting biblical and classical historical and mythological motifs alongside an image of Eberhard Louis and his monogram, was lost and the gallery was subdivided into offices until its restoration from 2000 to 2004. The clause in the middle is awkward, please simplify.
  •  Done
  • The clause in the middle is still there, but I will allow a bit of "Baroq" language.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the Western Gallery is the Jagdpavillon ... Shorten or split off please, it is too long.
  •  Done
  • Above each of the doors are more stucco reliefs, ... Similar problem.
  •  Done Broken into two sentences. –Vami_IV✠ 14:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East wing[edit]

  • The vestibule, designed and executed ... Sentence too long, split please.
  • The chapel is a classical ... Similar.
  •  Done
  • The denomination of the Schlosskapelle ... How does a building change a denomination?
  • Said building is a church. As is explained, the building in question (Schlosskapelle) changed denomination depending on who was Duke. –Vami_IV✠ 22:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Cavaliers' Building) Please move gloss upwards to first instance of the word.
  •  Done
  • Though not relevant for GA, you should be aware that a term does not need to be wikilinked each time you mention it in the article, but just the first time. Common words like coffee, tea, wine or beer need not be wikilinked, nor do country names, per WP:OVERLINKING.

West wing[edit]

Well-written.

  • Many sentences are quite lengthy, but the sentence Colomba painted the walls ... is a little over the top.
  •  Done
  • Johann Friedrich von Uffenbach ... Redlinked people need to be introduced, because there is no wikilink to help explain.
  •  Done
  • It was in the Order Hall that the constitutions of the Kingdom and then Free People's State of Württemberg in 1819 and 1919 respectively You missed a verb there.
  •  Done Good catch! I tend to forget words. –Vami_IV✠ 02:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Festinbau, attached ... A bit too long.
  •  Done Not anymore, hopefully. –Vami_IV✠ 02:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • but also meant that food arrived cold despite the small ovens along the way intended to keep it warm Less relevant.
  • Text and accompanying reference banished to the shadow realm. –Vami_IV✠ 02:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first Wiki article ever that wikilinks apple.
  • OK so maybe I have a wikilink addiction... –Vami_IV✠ 02:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of detail in these architecture subsections, you should start here when you begin trimming the article.
  • I had alluded to that when I mentioned trimming in the response checklist. –Vami_IV✠ 02:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Hauptbau[edit]

  • Frisoni planning began ... Looks like an editing scar.
  •  Done Rewrote and shortened. –Vami_IV✠ 03:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over a decade later in 1747, Duke Charles Eugene resumed construction in the New Hauptbau, left incomplete after Eberhard Louis's death, and completed its interiors in Rococo The clause in the middle is confusing.
  •  Done Rewrote and shortened. –Vami_IV✠ 03:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A vaulted passageway ... and Pilasters and windows ..., as well as Friedrich von Thouret ... and Past the conference room ... Too long sentences.
  •  Done Split a lot of firewood. Probably more to chop. –Vami_IV✠ 06:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Queen's staircase is a mirror ... Minerva is not really a virtue.
  •  Done
  • von Thouret's designed in September 1815 ... ... von Thouret's design?
  • installing a curved ceiling that Jean Pernaux painted the spring of 1815 Grammar is a little off, i think you are missing a preposition here.
  • the top the walls the top of the walls?
  • For the final, modest rooms of the suite, chief among the new writing room featuring Sappho in relief on a fireplace, were also remodeled in 1808–09 according to Frederick's exact instructions, which called for the division of one room into two for more fireplaces. This sentence reads a little confusing.
  • Wound up just keeping this but rewriting it. –Vami_IV✠ 07:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • installing a new, curved one What does one refer to? Is that the ceiling you mentioned before?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Oops, that was an edit scar. Fixed now. –Vami_IV✠ 23:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds and gardens[edit]

  • Main article hat is a redlink, which is highly unusual.
  • Other additions, ... and Frank approved ... Many and's in a row.
  •  Done Splits and commas. &dnash;Vami_IV✠ 06:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the farthest east portion of the gardens is the Fairy Tale Garden German: Märchengarten The German was already given above, no need to repeat.
  • The Fairy Tale Garden faced some opposition ... Why?
  •  Done My source didn't say, so I removed this. –Vami_IV✠ 06:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption below the little garden maps is aligned to the right, which make it look isolated and floating on my screen. Shouldn't it be aligned to the left?
  • Weird. They were centered using an HTML command. How do they look now that I've removed them? –Vami_IV✠ 06:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There still is a caption that says Figure: Map that is floating at the right. I don't think it is a problem for GA, though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Ohhhh, that! That's the gallery template "footer" parameter." I've gone ahead and removed it since I never refer to it in the article prose. –Vami_IV✠ 23:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schloss Favorite[edit]

  • whose premiere Eberhard Louis had been a guest to in 1743 in Berlin. Relevance?
  • and can be reimagined even after later modifications because of Frisoni's remaining artworks Two and's in a row, and a little cryptic.
  • This and the next sentence have been obliterated. –Vami_IV✠ 06:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • extensive plans for its grounds, survived only by the road to the main palace Survived is not quite used in such a case, please rephrase.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Museums[edit]

It amazes me they actually have museums for children.

  • (German: Modemuseum) and (German: Junge Bühne) Redundant, the German was already given.
  • But now you removed them all.
  • On the ground floor of the New Hauptbau is the lapidarium ... I thought you said there were just two museums.
  • Maintained by the Landesmuseum Württemberg. –Vami_IV✠ 06:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • The sentences In totality, construction cost the Duchy of Württemberg 3,000,000 florins and In 2016, the palace attracted some 330,000 visitors and brought as many as 311,000 by October 2017 should also be mentioned in the body of the text, because they can be easily integrated. The citations can then be removed.
  •  Done Removed to "Construction" and "Later history," but I kept the 2016 visitor figure in the lead. Citations were removed. –Vami_IV✠ 23:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work. Note though, that the stat of the 330,000 visitors is mentioned twice in the lead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph is quite specific (not a summary), and should be in the body of the text, not in the lead. You can continue summarizing the article, and put another paragraph there instead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I have moved the entirety of that paragraph to "Later history." –Vami_IV✠ 23:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please expand the lead a little. The lead is a little too small for such a huge article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a 'lil bit of text and removed that double visitors figure. –Vami_IV✠ 18:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a rewrite; standing at three paragraphs now. –Vami_IV✠ 16:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018[edit]

I will continue my review after you have responded to most of these comments.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind the slow speed we're going. I am just not familiar with the subject material at all.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, this is a slow review? –Vami_IV✠ 23:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Well, we're over seven days.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article, i am impressed by the efforts that you have put into this, and the ability to paint a picture of a time and age in which detail and refinement was more common than now. I have finished the detailed review. I will check your corrections and also review the lead later, once you have addressed all the comments and have trimmed the article sufficiently.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: I have shaved some ~2000 words from the article and done a bit of splitting. I have also addressed all your comments. Advise? –Vami_IV✠ 08:10, 28 July 2018 (
I am doing a second reading now.
  • Acting on this, I've gone and swung my ax like it was going out of style. We're sitting at 50 kB (exactly 8300 words as of time of writing). There might be a little bit left to cut, but at this point I don't think it would change much. As for links, I removed The Met and that movie guides thing in my rampage. I've fixed the Ludwigsburg Museum links (turns out they rebuilt their website), but all the other links in blue work. Except for the Finance ministry ones, as their website is currently down for maintenance. –Vami_IV✠ 18:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A German website down for maintenance? I guess miracles still exist. Must be a glitch in grundlichkeit.
  • Good work with the trim! I'll get back to you today.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few comments above that have not been addressed yet. Look for the sections not crossed out in the table of contents, and then the parts that are underlined. Now I will review the lead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Reviewed.☝--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All criteria are met now. I'm passing for GA. Congratulations! Let me know if you do a DYK nomination, and if you're available, please review a GA nomination of mine at WP:GAN#REL.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for conducting this lengthy and very thorough review! I have nominated the article for DYK and will now do some quid pro quo. –Vami_IV✠ 17:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Progress[edit]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above 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.

Proofreading and initial copy edit[edit]

Hello. I have been working with User:Gerda Arendt and noticed the DYK nomination thread. I also saw the Germany project discussion page request for proofreading. I have skimmed through some of the sections and plan to look at the rest as I get time. I would like to then make a second pass. Quite a sizeable article. I lived in nearby Stuttgart for several years, so the topic is quite interesting. I need to limit my participation at the moment to copy editing and making comments along the way, however. MfG Jmar67 (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am very appreciative of your efforts thus far. You have made some good grammar catches. –Vami_IV✠ 06:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: (another) Peer Review, as requested.

Copy edit[edit]

First and second floors[edit]

I suspect we may have a translation of 1. and 2. Stock here. That would be a problem at least in AmE. Will check. Jmar67 (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the German in most cases. Possibly in Wenger, which is EN. For the Küchenbau, "erste Etage" translated as "first floor". Should be "second floor" in AmE. Jmar67 (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"AmE"? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
American English. The article uses it. Jmar67 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. From what I can read of the issue here, it seems a change in the prose is in order and the addition of a Note explaining that the source uses European English. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archived cut content[edit]

Saved here are two footnotes I cut, in case they could be used on Ludwigsburg. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Ludwigsburg Palace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwigsburg_Palace&oldid=1221351082"