Wikipedia:Featured article review/Prince's Palace of Monaco/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Giano, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject France, WikiProject European Microstates, WikiProject Monaco, WikiProject Italy, Diff of talk page notification 2021-05-23
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article (2007 promotion) for review because it falls short of the present-day featured article criteria on a number of fronts. Most fundamentally, large swaths of the article lack citations altogether, while many sources are of questionable reliability (e.g. heraldica.org, worldroots.com, etc.). There are also image sandwiching concerns, and the article often strays from the topic at hand to discuss tangential aspects of Monegasque dynastic history. These issues were first pointed out almost a decade ago, and there have been no edits to the article since I gave notice six weeks ago. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Giano What exactly is that you feel “often strays?” The article is about the seat of a dynasty and the building is the architectural embodiment of that dynasty. It was also built by members of that dynasty to reflect their personalities and power. Therefore, the history of that dynasty is more than pertinent to the article. I see you are “proud to be an American” so perhaps the embodiment of dynasties in architecture has escaped you, but I can assure you they are very often inextricably bound together. Giano (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mirokado Since this is an FA review, I will edit this article a bit more than I would if reviewing for an FA candidacy, and I may try to correct some of the points I raise here myself if nobody else jumps in.
- Concerning "the article often strays from the topic at hand", the second and third paragraphs of the lead show why some digression may be necessary to present a complete picture of the palace in context and the reasons for how it has developed.
- Concerning "large swaths of the article lack citations altogether", I have to agree. Although it is true that there is no reasonable doubt that the information can be verified, detailed callouts show where to start checking if there is a long list of citations, and help an interested reader decide, for example, which book among the citations to buy for further reading. I have updated the article so that any longer list of callouts in the References section will be clearer, to make the display consistent, and to present the print citations in alphabetical order of author surname.
I've now separated the citation list, which was already in two parts for books and online sources, into separate sections Print sources and Online sources. I've updated the online citations for consistent source format and added archive links where necessary. The online citations are sorted alphabetically by title since most do not have authors and the corresponding callouts also start with the title. I hope this makes it easy to recognise where to look for each citation from a callout. --Mirokado (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
§Grimaldi fortress- This section still refers to illustration 6, which has been removed at some stage.
The subsequent illustrations will need to be renumbered.- Since the image was removed by a bot, I have restored a different image. --Mirokado (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- §Absentee landlords and revolution (1662–1815)
- This paragraph and its accompanying notes need clarification and probably corrections (@Giano: comments welcome):
Honoré III married [[Maria-Caterina di Brignole-Sale|Catherine Brignole]]{{efn|Sometimes known as Catherine Brignole}} in 1757 and later divorced her. Before his marriage, Honoré III had been conducting an affair with his future mother-in-law.{{efn|Marie Catherine Brignole}} After her divorce Marie Brignole married [[Louis Joseph de Bourbon, prince de Condé]], a member of the fallen French royal house, in 1798.- I think the first wl and note can be replaced by "Maria Caterina Brignole", assuming that article is at the most recognisable name,
and given: that article says that her mother was Maria Anna Balbi, so we can replace the second note by content: "... his future mother-in-law Maria Anna Balbi."- While tidying up the citations I realised that "Marie Catherine Brignole" was a callout for an online citation, not a note, so I have updated the article accordingly:
With the reference clear, it is not necessary to give the mother's name here. --Mirokado (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]Honoré III married [[Maria-Caterina di Brignole-Sale|Catherine Brignole]]{{efn|Sometimes known as Catherine Brignole}} in 1757 and later divorced her. Before his marriage, Honoré III had been conducting an affair with his future mother-in-law.<ref>"Marie Catherine Brignole", ''Royalty Pages''.</ref> After her divorce Marie Brignole married [[Louis Joseph de Bourbon, prince de Condé]], a member of the fallen French royal house, in 1798.
- I think the first wl and note can be replaced by "Maria Caterina Brignole", assuming that article is at the most recognisable name,
- This paragraph and its accompanying notes need clarification and probably corrections (@Giano: comments welcome):
Perhaps more later. --Mirokado (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC – there's been a bit of helpful gnoming, but the fundamental issues still remain: much of the article still lacks citations, and there are other unaddressed issues involving image placement, source reliability, etc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: quick skim reveals uncited paragraphs. @Giano and Mirokado: are you interested in addressing these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I’m not. I suspect the whole page is a pack of lies; I’d delete the lot. The building and the family are so commonplace, they’re really so non-notable, that verification will be impossible. Giano (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – no progress toward resolving the issues raised above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist there was great progress to improve the article at the beginning of July, but this seems to have stalled. Article has numerous paragraphs without citations that need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delist - I don't think all of the web sources used are reliable (particularly the worldroots source, and I'm not sure that Gale Force (a tech company) is a great source for historical information). Hog Farm Talk 17:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.