Wikipedia:Peer review/Louvre Abu Dhabi/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Louvre Abu Dhabi[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a Good Article, and I would like to receive feedback on the article, to determine what still needs to be done, and what improvements need to be made. Hopefully, with a bit of work, it'll be ready for WP:FA. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Jordan Contribs 07:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Too many quotes! It's affecting readability.
    • I mean that there are so many direct quotations that I cannot tell which text is plain prose and which is quotes. Perhaps delete some quotes and keep only the most important ones. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use em dashes instead of hyphens. Example:
    • Watch dash use: en dashes for ranges. Currently, you're using hyphens. Example: "2012 - 2013" in the infobox should be "2012 – 2013". Dabomb87 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jordan Contribs 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are inconsistencies in currency: "US$525", but "525 million USD".
Done. I've changed them all.
  • Watch for redundancies: "525 million USD was paid by Abu Dhabi in order to be associated"
Fixed. Jordan Contribs 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're consistent now, but they have repetition: "$27 billion USD". The dollar sign indicates dollars. It should be "US$27 billion". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted out. All of the costs now use this format.
  • Citation inconsistencies: Some last access dates are linked, others are not; date formats are differing, wording is different.
Inconsistencies are fixed. Jordan Contribs 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn the "Cost estimates" section into prose. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Currently, the "Cost estimates" section is a bulleted list. Make it a paragraph instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted it to prose. Jordan Contribs 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lazulilasher

First, please place quotes in quotation marks. See below. If there are more, please fix them.

The only museum FA that I know of is Palazzo Pitti. I recommend that as a guide.

  • Thing that need to be "in quotation marks":
  • The Article: "The museum will be designed as a seemingly floating dome structure; its web-patterned dome allowing the sun to filter through. The overall effect is meant to represent "rays of sunlight passing through date palm fronds in an oasis" The Source: Designed as a seemingly floating dome structure... Its web-patterned dome allows the sun to filter through, reminiscent of rays passing through date palm fronds in an oasis. Extremely close to the source, don't you think? If "seemingly floating dome structure" is a quote, then it should be in quotation marks. This is not Wikipedia's prose, it is another author's prose and he should be quoted.
Sorted out: now quoted.
  • Again, this: The type and nature of the exhibits planned for the Louvre had been affected “to no extent so far” by the fact the new museum would be in a Muslim country, said Mr Loyrette. is a direct quotation from the National Newspaper.
You've fixed this one up. Thanks.
  • Saadiyat Island's Cultural District will house the largest single cluster of world-class cultural assets -- What is a "single cluster of world-class cultural assets"? What defines a cluster? What exactly are world-class cultural assets? Also, the source says: "Saadiyat Island's Cultural District will house the largest single cluster of world-class cultural assets.", which is the same sentence as the article. Since it is over three words, it is a direct quotation and should be marked as such (use quotation marks).

I am sure there are more throughout the article; if the text is taken directly from a source, then it needs to be rendered as a quotation. Lazulilasher (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for more instances and improve them, adding quotations. Jordan Contribs 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More quotations:

  • This text: The galleries of the museum will leave room for confrontations between artworks of different periods and geographical regions, emphasizing the dialogue between civilizations in the field of the arts is completely unsourced and is verbatim from: here. This needs to be sourced and marked as a quotation. For the time being, I have removed the text from the article. Jordan, please rectify these areas. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This text: the controversy that has surfaced in France is led by art historian Didier Rykner, one of the most outspoken critics of the French–Emirati deal is directly from here
  • This text: Henri Loyrette, the president and director of the Louvre, has responded to growing criticism of the museum’s new policy of establishing footholds abroad, arguing that the Louvre cannot ignore the “internationalization” of museums. is directly from the New York Times.
  • This text: The French Culture Minister, Donnedieu de Vabres, said the "noble" venture represented the globalization of French culture, the first step in a long-term cooperation with the wealthy Gulf Arab region. is directly taken from USAToday and totally unattributed. It was removed. see here

The article is mostly a collection of quotes. Some were attributed, some not. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another quote copied from the source:

  • The French Museums agency will operate in collaboration with the Tourism Development and Investment Company (TDIC), which is behind the transformation of Saadiyat Island. It will be chaired by French financier and member of the country's Académie des Beaux-Arts, Marc Ladreit de Lacharriere, publisher of the periodical Revue des Deux Mondes. I've marked this text as a quotation, taken directly from here.

Did you do the same thing on other articles? If so, please clearly attribute the author's words to the author. Not doing so misrepresents Wikipedia as the author. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]