Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ludwigsburg Palace/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2018 [1].

Ludwigsburg Palace[edit]

Nominator(s): Vami_IV† 19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigsburg Palace, the "Versailles of Swabia," is a current Good Article and Did You Know subject. The palace has four distinct architectural styles, a massive garden, hosts musical festivals annually, and once housed a porcelain manufactory. This is my first attempt at a Featured Article as well as the article's, but I've had aspirations for the bronze star for a long time now. Vami_IV† 19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other contributors: User:Farang Rak Tham (GA Reviewer), User:Jmar67 (copy editor).

Image review

  • 1889 plan should be scaled up
  • Germany does not have freedom of panorama for interiors of buildings or sculptural works not permanently in place, so all of these images will need tags for the copyright status of the pictured elements
  • The only image that I, a copyright novice, can think of that would violate FoP is the image of the porcelains in the museum. However, those are in the collection of a state-owned museum in a state-owned palace. –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This applies to File:Ludwigsburg,_November_2006,_27.jpg, File:J_C_W_Beyer_Celllospieler_KGM_img01.jpg, File:Ludwigsbg_mirror.JPG, File:Ludwisburg.jpg, File:RSLB_Riesen_im_Riesenbau.jpg, File:Ludwigsburg,_November_2006,_17.jpg, File:RSLB_Kirche1.jpg, File:RSLB_Ahnengalerie4_Bildergalerie_gegenueber.jpg, File:RSLB_Schlafzimmer_Koenig_Friedrich.jpg, and File:238_Waschgarnitur_Ludwigsburg_c1805-1816_02.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Axed all images of the palace interiors. –Vami_IV† 06:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Residenzschloss_Ludwigsburg_floorplan_(numbered).jpg: if the creator of the source map is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
  • As it turns out, the author didn't; he died in 1938. Should I replace the image with the original work plan on the German version of Ludwigsburg Palace? –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Did this anyway and replaced. –Vami_IV† 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the source of the data underlying the new map? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Schloss_Ludwigsburg_1705.jpg: source links are dead. Same with File:A008318a.jpg
  •  Done First picture axed from article, repaired source link for the second. –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the source of the data underlying the various Bluehender_Barock diagrams? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done They're original works, but I've added a reference and citation to the Blooming Baroque website's map of the gardens. The website's map is at an angle and looking from the northeast, however. –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: What tag should I be using on the images? I'm new to image copyright.

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

@Casliber:
  • built for the dukes of Württemberg. - I'd put this in the second sentence of the lead rather than at the end of the first where it is now. it's a bit clunky as is.
  • I've removed it instead. –Vami_IV† 05:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • arranged as it might have appeared in 1800 - "they"? aren't we talking about "gardens"?
  • There is no instance of the word "they" in the lead. –Vami_IV† 05:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is currently "it" but as it is referring to the gardens (which is plural), it should be "they" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Fixed
  • A porcelain manufactory - why not just, "A porcelain factory"
  • Frisoni should be wikilinked and mentioned by whole name on his first mention in the article.
  •  Fixed
  • Several other people have the same problem.
  •  Done

Carabinieri[edit]

Hi, I haven't reviewed the article's prose in detail, but here are a few comments:

  • What makes sueddeutscher-barock.ch and porcelainmarksandmore.com reliable sources? As far as I can tell those are personal websites. I also think stuttgart-tourist.de, briefmarken-versand-welt.de might be a bit iffy.
  • I'm myself not sure how reliable Porcelain Marks is, because he doesn't cite sources, but Bieri Pius (Suddeutscher Barock) is legit. He's got his name, CC 2.0 license, and his library on his website. Region Stuttgart is a marketing company partnered with the city of Stuttgart, but I removed them from the article anyway because I only referenced them once. briefmarken-versand-welt.de is also gone now. –Vami_IV† 21:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Süddeutscher Barock has a free license, an author name, and a list of sources doesn't make it reliable in my mind. If Porcelain Marks isn't reliable, it probably shouldn't be used.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can whittle down content from and then purge Porcelain Marks, but I'd like other opinions on Süddeutscher Barock's credentials. –Vami_IV† 19:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Süddeutscher Barock's impressum, it's Pius Bieri's personal website, and there's no indication anyone else is involved. That pretty clearly runs afoul of WP:RS, which deems sources "with no editorial oversight" questionable.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understand, Pius Bieri was in the light in the dark here for me here and it would be very painful to throw him away, but I'll still bow to policy. I started looking into WP:RS/SPS's exceptions and then into Pius Bieri himself and found that he was fairly recently involved in a restoration of a Baroque building on Ufenau. –Vami_IV† 02:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have conducted further research. Pius Bieri has also been on the team that restored this church and he's mentioned by name as a "further reading" source in Daniel Fulco's book Exuberant Apothoses, page 503, footnote 5. He is also in the bibliography of this book (page 360), coincidentally for a page I cited in the writing of Ludwigsburg Palace. Here's a Google Books search result for "Pius Bieri" –Vami_IV† 15:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the "Porcelain manufactory" seems to be a very close paraphrase of the porcelainmarksandmore.com page.
 Done I've rewritten the entire section from scratch and in one paragraph. –Vami_IV† 06:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references section contains a large number of sources that aren't actually cited in any of the footnotes.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single reference in "References" is linked by at least one citation. –Vami_IV† 19:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I missed it because a lot of them aren't listed under the author in the footnotes.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-oppose from Johnbod[edit]

All interior shots not of pieces of porcelain etc have been removed, following a comment above by Nikkimaria. This brings the article below the level where I can support. Fortunately I think her argument that "Germany does not have freedom of panorama for interiors of buildings or sculptural works not permanently in place, so all of these images will need tags for the copyright status of the pictured elements" is completely wrong. All the elements in all the photos previously there are either original 18th century pieces or possibly in some cases copies or restorations. But in any case there is no question of intellectual property rights remaining. We have never taken copyright to this excessive extent now, and it is important that this copyright creep is resisted. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. I didn't say all of them needed to be removed, but tagged to reflect current copyright status. We have always required appropriate tagging of images where copyright has expired due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea where to start so I opted for an ax rather than a labelmaker I don't know how to use. –Vami_IV† 11:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, I don't agree with this approach, but the tags requested on the Commons files are not difficult (normally). Looking for an example, I went through several FAs of historic buildings with interior photos (including Palace of Queluz, Oregon State Capitol, Pennsylvania State Capitol, Michigan State Capitol, IG Farben Building and others), without finding any tags of this sort at all. I don't believe that we have ever required tagging of this type in such cases in fact. Nikkimaria, perhaps you could supply examples of FACs where such tags have been requested (or were already in place), and indeed an example of what such a tag would look like? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't believe any of those would require such tagging - both Portugal and the US have freedom of panorama covering public interiors of buildings, and looks like the only Farben interior is utilitarian rather than creative (bookshelves). As to tagging, something like File:'Hiawatha's_Marriage',_marble_sculpture_by_Edmonia_Lewis,_1871.JPG would be a good model. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The US does not have FOP covering contents, works of art etc, just the actual structure, so is very comparable to the German cases here. Re Farben, if you think modern chair designs aren't copyrighted, you're very wrong! The Hiawatha image is of a single work. How many works do you think need tagging for in this, one of the images you complained about? Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chair designs can be copyrighted, certainly, but to be so they need some originality - I don't agree that the ones in the Farber image are likely to qualify. But you are correct about the US images, I should have looked at those more closely rather than making a general statement. As to the image you cite, while there are multiple potentially copyrightable elements I suspect most if not all would fall under the same tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the images to the article. Let's stop fighting and figure out which tag to use. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator note - This has been open for over a month without attracting any support for promotion, so it will be archived shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ludwigsburg_Palace/archive1&oldid=862070202"