Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ludwigsburg Palace/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2018 [1].

Ludwigsburg Palace edit

Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome (back) to the "Versailles of Swabia," one of the largest palace complexes in Germany. After a detailed GAN, I nominated Ludwigsburg Palace for FAC at the start of August. The nomination ended in failure, so I let a month of time elapse before re-nominating and incorporating editor commentary on the previous FAC. Here's to progress! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

1a, opening two sentences:

  • "Ludwigsburg Palace (German: Residenzschloss Ludwigsburg), also known as the "Versailles of Swabia", is a 452-room palace complex of 18 buildings located in Ludwigsburg, Germany. Together W[w]ith the added gardens around the palace, its Ludwigsburg Palace's total area is amounts to 32 ha (3,400,000 sq ft), making it—the largest palatial estate in the country Germany." ... Does it get better? And why not a conversion to acres to save us the millions and millions. Does "German" (language) really need to be linked? "Germany" certainly doesn't need to be—unless the reader is Trump or a five-year-old kid. The country-link will be in the Ludwigsberg article, anyway. Later, I see the garden alone is "3,400,000 sq ft": how can that be?

Tony (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I couldn't find a source claiming it was the biggest palace in Germany - just one of. Even though, but total area, it definitely is (eat it, Würzburg!). I've added all your suggestions, also. –Vami
  • "In 2016, the Ludwigsburg Palace attracted some 330,000 visitors." Now it's "the"; but that's missing from the very opening. Which is it to be in a grammaticalised sentence (as opposed to the article title)? And why not "the Palace"?
    • Oh man, good catch! Fixed now. –Vami
  • Vami, I was indicating that you need to do far, far more than just fix what I pointed out in the opening two sentences. Have you printed out the text and struck through all the woolly wording throughout? Tony (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2017, 350,642 people visited Ludwigsburg Palace." It's a phone number. Good case for passive voice.
  • How do you "sort out" paintings?
  • English can be ugly if you want it to be: "Ludwigsburg Palace exhibits a great deal of Austrian and Czech Baroque influence,"—shows? reveals?
  • I see lots of "would" future tense. Use it a bit, but not more, please. "that was then carried out by" rather than "that would then be carried out by".
  • Fixed. –Vami

At least the spot-check found better prose than the opening two sentences (above). Tony (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your comment, but it's okay been I addressed it now. Thanks for getting back to me. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jmar67 (JM) edit

  • I was asked by Gerda and Vami to do another copy edit (first one several weeks ago). I have finished an initial pass and welcome feedback. Jmar67 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also article talk page. --JM
  • @Vami IV: Should be "Alter Hauptbau" and "Neuer Hauptbau". --JM
    • Fixed, and thank you for your copyedits thus far. –Vami

Comments and support from Gerda edit

Thank you for the invitation to an impressive article about an impressive building! I'll read the lead, but will comment on it last, and do little steps, commenting as I read.

  • I don't need such a long hatnote. The other palace, fine, but both the socalled "city" (town?) and the porcelain will be linked in the article, - let's get to the topic ;)
  • I formatted the infobox a bit. I don't see any advantage in having it collapsed, just more white space. The "alt" text shouldn't be a repetition of the caption, but explain to a blind person what you see on the image. Please, generally, avoid fixed image sizes, - upright factors (from 0.7 to 1.3) respect users' preferences.

TOC

  • The table of contents looks clear, but I wonder if "Hauptbau" is a good a idea, once we started with "palace", and readers may be unfamiliar with the term. Perhaps better use "main building" and introduce the German in the text?
  • Changed Old and New Hauptbau headers back to North and South wings and introduced translated text in parentheses. –Vami
  • Do we really need 5 headers for the references. (I normally have only 3: (foot)notes, references, and cited sources.)
  • No. That is why they are not headers. –Vami

History

  • What do you think of having the plan in the architecture section, where (hopefully) the German terms get explained?
  • Done. –Vami
  • How about the name of the builder in German, which would make the explanation of Ludwigsburg much easier? I strongly believe that his name should be at least mentioned in his article ;)
  • First paragraph: "Eberhard Louis renamed the estate after himself (German: Ludwigsburg, lit. 'Louis's Castle') in 1705" –Vami
  • That's what I mean. His name was "Eberhard Ludwig", or the place would be Louisburg or what. Really too bad that so many noble people travel in the English Wikipedia only by translated names. Common name is fine, but real name should also show, if you ask me. (Not your fault, but we could start adding a real name in an article like this.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I've added a clipped image of the duke's portrait with his German name. –Vami
  • Can we link to the palaces of Munich, instead of the present-day city? (like you do for Versailles)
  • Done. Moved link to the same sentence I linked Versailles in and replaced the first mention with "Nymphenburg Palace." –Vami
  • How about linking "architectural trends ..." to Baroque architecture?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "city"? - Project Germany defines a city as something with at least 100,000 inhabitants. I'd prefer "town". See Town privileges
  • But later granted city status. --JM
  • I'd call it town status, or say that it receive town privileges. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed --JM
  • Perhaps it's just too late, but I don't get the meaning of the run-on sentence beginning "E L decided ...". Split in two, or three? And what does overture mean here?
  • Not a run-on sentence, just somewhat lengthy and awkward. I have changed. "Overture" = proposal, offer. --JM
  • No need to say "Duke E L" once he's introduced. Just name, or "the duke".
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • In an article about something German, I don't think you have to say "German:" everytime something is translated, - it should be default.
  • Done. –Vami

Need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

  • I am no friend of squeezed text between images left and right, in general. In particular, the Courtyard image looks finished, not like construction ;) (actually: nor do the others) - Any other location for that? Better English names in the caption.
  • Unsandwiched a lot of the article. Did I go too far? –Vami
  • Done. –Vami
  • I am no friend of mixing English and German, as Old Hauptbau. At least Old Hauptbau. And a translation of the German part?
  • "Hauptbau" would produce "Main building," thus "Old Main building," which is thoroughly unsexy. –Vami
  • Don't get me wrong, I don't want you to use the thoroughly unsexy name throughout the article, but once explain please what Hauptbau means. Or: use Alter Hauptbau, after explaining once what that means. Or: say old Hauptbau. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind: keep the courtyard image, but in the caption use the terms from the text. Move the 19th century thing below.
  • explain "absorbing"?
  • Changed to "incorporating" --JM
  • please don't use the fixed template in FACs, - some of the FA people are allergic to templates ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be WP:OR from poor translating from Swiss German (Bieri), corrected. –Vami
  • Donato Giuseppe Frisoni - he was introduced before, but I didn't make the connection that Donato Frisoni was the same person. How about same name, or just last name, which would tell people that they should know him?
  • Fixed; abbreviated to "Frisoni". –Vami

More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use as a residence

  • Why not simply "Residence"?
  • Done --JM
  • Images: the view is decorative but not much more, Casanova should look "in" and could be normal upright.
  • Done. –Vami
  • For fairness: in "Duke Eberhard Louis left no heirs and was succeeded by Karl Alexander." - let both be Duke, or both not ;)
  • Done --JM
  • another "city"
  • Done --JM
  • "... use Ludwigsburg as a secret residence until 1775 and brought the Rococo style to Ludwigsburg in 1747." - I'd end the sentence after 1775, otherwise the chronology seems disturbed.
  • Tweaked --JM
  • "such as when" - really?
  • Is OK. --JM
  • It is OK but not elegant. The palace is elegant. Thank you for tha many fixes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not call it "elegant" either but it is not jargon. It is perfectly correct for giving an example. I would not have made this change. --JM
  • Will readers know what Schlosstheater means?
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • What is an "opera hall"?
  • "himself succeeded"?
  • Is OK. --JM
  • just curious: why not simply "he succeeded"? - I try to avoid "however" and "himself" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was there for rhetorical reasons, because he had succeeded his predecessor earlier in the sentence. I don't know what you have against "however". I use it often. --JM
  • "Charlotte, Princess Royal, daughter of King George III" - "Charlotte, the daughter of King George III" would suffice.
  • Done --JM
  • "Friedrich II, now Frederick I" - I'll never understand these noble names ;)
Anglicized every instance of "Friedrich II" and added the distinction of "Duke" –Vami
  • "felt that he had to express this accomplishment in architecture, as Eberhard Louis had attempted" - no way that Eberhard Ludwig could have expressed the same acomplishment (and which anyway) - the wording sounds translated to me, but I may be wrong.
  • Done --JM
  • "... remodeling, this time the Ordenskapelle and the king's apartment, which lasted from 1808 to 1811" - sounds like the apartment lasted.
  • Done --JM
  • "Neuer Hauptbau's" - just no, we can't add an English possessive to a German term.
  • Done --JM
  • Is this an established rule? I find it OK. We are using these terms for convenience and should treat them as English words. --JM
  • I have modified the prose to remove the possessive –Vami
  • "then-modern tastes" - not happy. "in the latest style"?
  • Done --JM
  • any better word instead of a repeated "take place".
  • Done --JM

More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Later history

  • The first image caption is needlessly long, - all we'd need to know is that it was used for important contracts and trials ;) - Put rest in the body, if really needed. - Please link trial in caption, for those who only look at pics ;)
    • Done. –Vami
  • "restoration took place at"?
    • Fixed. –Vami
  • Second paragraph: first sentence combines 2 things by "and" which are not connected, opening to the public, and ratification.
    • Fixed. –Vami
  • Too much math: the following year - four years later.
    • Fixed. –Vami
  • How about combining the two Sitzmann visits? The second has more substance, - do we need the first at all?
    • Axed first visit, revised second. –Vami
  • Is the Lego thing notable if the company has no article in German?
    • Guess not; axed. –Vami
  • The sentence about the painting attribution is too complex to follow, - make it three?
    • Simplified and whittled down into two. –Vami
  • Am I the only one to find visitor numbers a bit boring? - How about one?
    • Axed. –Vami
  • "to arrange the Neuer Hauptbau" - arrange? refurbish? whatever, but not arrange. - More later. Vacation from tomorrow, be prepared for delays ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. –Vami

Architecture

  • I'd not link Austro-Czech, and perhaps better not even use it. The later link (Bohemian Baroque) is the one that would fit, while Sudenten German is plain wrong.
  • Fixed. Not that it matters, but that was actually not an error of my making. –Vami
  • I don't understand the "but" in the sentence with the (too?) many names.
  • Removed. –Vami
  • It's debatable if the people mentioned before should get a repeated link, but certainly not a repeated red link. I'd give no first names to those mentioned before, reminding readers that they should know them.
  • Fixed. I translated one of those bios, and a number of others were faulty links (oops). –Vami
  • I don't understand the "also" in the sentence about the interior, nor what "Baroque influences" means.
  • Fixed sentence. I removed "Baroque" from the sentence and added a semicolon to punctuate the "also", a reference to the mix of Baroque styles that is the palace exteriors. –Vami
  • "King Frederick I, at the time Duke Frederick II" - I think "Duke Frederick II" would be better.
  • Done. –Vami

Sorry, the whole paragraph strike me as unconvincing. Perhaps I should read first what follows. An overview of the styles, perhaps with some years attached, is desirable, but a load of unknown names is not that. Tired, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider methods of expanding/improving the paragraph as you dictate. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The deed is done. How does it read now? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thank you! - How about - once we are next to the plan, say which part was made by whom when - at least for major parts as Alter and Neuer Hauptbau? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By ruler (Eberhard Louis built all the exteriors) or by architect? Both? I also cover that, building by building, in the following sections. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure it will come in the details, but here is the plan, and here you could make the connections of architect, year and building, but only for important ones. That could actually also go to the lead then, pleasing Dr. Blofeld. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading again:

  • Can we avoid repetitions more, Baroque, Czech Baroque, more Czech. - I wonder if Bohemian would be more precise.
  • Done. –Vami
  • Prague and Vienna come as a surprise after we heard of French and Italian.
    Can you elaborate? –Vami
    We heard about many influences from France and Italy, and then are told that it resembles places in Prague and Vienna, - wouldn't that fit the Bohemian influence better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a footnote detailing that Bohemian influence - does that help? –Vami
  • Can we avoid "whose work Eberhard Louis was familiar with"?
    Removed. –Vami
  • Where would Neoclassical begin?
    Where in the prose...? –Vami
    Yes. I began a new paragraph for rococo, and a third would be good for neoclassical, only where? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I've moved the Rococo bit back into the first paragraph, since it was a single sentence, and gave the whole second paragraph to the Neoclassical. –Vami

North wing

  • "At the top of the stairs is a guard room and then the beletage's four suites, following the French Baroque model of a living room, audience chamber, and bedroom". Don't we need "are" (not "is") fofr more than one? I only count to 3, not 4, in the model.
  • No. There is one guard room, hence "is". I've made some revision to the sentence(s; I split the quoted material). –Vami
  • "Eberhard Louis's apartment is made unique by the addition of a hall of mirrors ..." - suggest: The apartment of EL features a unique hall of mirrors".
  • Done. –Vami
  • "houses the two galleries" - do we know them already? " houses two galleries"?
  • Oops. Removed. –Vami
  • General: How about using this paragraph to once more connect the German terms from the plan to what they mean in English, and in the later paragraphs use one or the other, without repeating the translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you are referring to the "Eastern/Western Galleries" here. Since they're not named on the map nor a major part of the palace, I've taken their title-case names away. –Vami

More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "piece of clockwork" - why "piece of"? link "clockwork"?
  • As it turns out, that piece of clockwork is actually all the clockwork from Zwiefalten. Fixed now. –Vami
  • "joined to it"? - "connected to it"?
  • Done. –Vami
  • Why north wing, but Western Gallery? Add German names for galleries?
  • "peacetime - warfare"? Peace - War?
  • Done. –Vami
  • link the virtues, or Virtues?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Above the entire gallery is Colomba's Gigantomachy", - I'd offer a bit of explanation, what it is (ceiling freco?) and what it shows, - yes, there's a link, but I had no idea before clicking.
  • Added. –Vami

East wing

  • not sure how a building can begin a wing, as in the first sentence.
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "on the ceiling of the beletage by Leopoldo Retti, preserved from the 1720s" - I think saying something was different style and then back to the former is fine, but "on the ceiling of the beletage by Leopoldo Retti from the 1720s" would imply it was there all the time, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the Östlicher Kavaliersbau, not the Riesenbau. –Vami
    ?? We are under East wing, and the question is: do we need the "preserved"?
    Axed both instances of "preserved". –Vami
  • "Joined to the Riesenbau and Östlicher Kavaliersbau by a connecting room on its southern end is the Schlosskapelle" - please no, just to Germanish. Begin with Schlosskapelle, and use joined or connected?
  • Removed instead (couldn't make work). –Vami
  • King David is a redirect, and the story possibly begins before he was King, - how about David?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "restricted by Protestant doctrine to illustrations of the Apostles", - no, "restricted by Protestant doctrine to illustrations of biblical topics, such as Apostles ..." - link Apostles? - If it's Protestant it was not consecrated.
  • Done. The Apostles was already linked.
  • "Beneath the chapel is a crypt that contains all rulers" - how about "A crypt under the chapel is the burial site of all rulers"?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "The Schlosskapelle avoided ..." no, - a chapel can't avoid ;)
  • I... Done. –Vami
  • I boldly rephrased the ceiling fresco thing, please check and revert ;) - too tired to go step by step. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankee. –Vami

West wing

  • Can you introduce the order right after "Ordensbau", for the connection?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "King Frederick I's" - looks strange. "... of King Frederick I"?
  • Changed to "the king's". –Vami
  • "due to the difficulty in transporting resources" - what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Axed sentence. –Vami

South wing

  • The sentence about the servant passages comes as a surprise after we reached 1945 already.
  • Couldn't find a place to fit this, so I axed it. –Vami
  • "It is home to a statue" - not sure it's the best way to say that.
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "Next are the grand staircases" - same, "next" in what respect?
  • Removed all instances of "next" like this. –Vami
  • At the end of the sentence beginning "Pilasters and windows", I don't know what I read. Split? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. –Vami

Grounds and gardens

  • "Surrounding the residential palace on three sides are the 32-hectare (79-acre) Blooming Baroque (Blühendes Barock) gardens, which attract 520,000 to 550,000 visitors annually." - Please no. I suggest we first learn about the gardens and their history, then about the strange name which sounds like a marketing name, and then about that the marketing worked. When were the gardens called Blühendes Barock? (A name which is pure nonsense.) And by whom?
  • "The gardens were to be focused" - hard to believe ;)
  • Changed to "centered". –Vami
  • Why south wing but South Garden? Actually I'd understand South Wing, as sort of a name. We just debated Luther monument vs. Luther Monument, ending with the latter.
  • Reduced garden stature. –Vami
  • "collection of broderie parterres, bosquets, and an orangery" - not sure that can be called a collection
  • Axed because who cares. –Vami
  • didn't we link the dukes often enough?
  • Enacted a link-pocalypse. –Vami
  • "filling in the North Garden's terraces to replace it with a large broderie" - replace "them" (the terraces)
  • Rewrote. –Vami
  • what are hillocks? link?
  • Link added. –Vami
  • "the garden east" - not sure we can say that, and the sentence in which it occurs is good for three
  • Also rewrote. Rewrites everywhere. –Vami
  • "the Hohenstaufens" - can we please avoid an English plural for a German word?
  • Changed to "House of Hohenstaufen". –Vami
  • Frederick I and/or II - I keep being confused (dropped him once)
  • Axed to just Frederick I, continuity be damned. –Vami
  • "which easily became a permanent landmark" - what does "easily" add?
  • Removed. Sorry about that, I guess the flowery writing of the Blooming Baroque website infected me. –Vami
  • "40 recreations of fairy tales" - recreations? - I suggest to find a way to link fairy-tale the first time, and be consistent about hyphen or space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphen added to "fairy-tale" as per Blooming Baroque website theme. –Vami

Favorite

  • The repetition explaining history is too long for my taste.
  • Reduced. –Vami
  • "leaving only the road to the main palace" - what does "leaving" mean here?
  • Reworded sentence. –Vami
  • another link to that king, and the the following?
  • Axed. –Vami
  • "appointed an elector in 1803 and made a king in 1806" - "made" sounds rather infomal ;)
  • Changed to "and then a king in 1806". –Vami

Museums

  • "making it one of the largest in Europe" - I guess we need to say the largest what
  • Done. –Vami
  • I'd unpipe the manufacturers of porcelain, they have good names.
  • I think the sentence, "It also includes porcelain from the manufactories at Meissen, Berlin, Sèvres, and Vienna", works fine. It denotes those links as to manufacturies. Unpiping the links would lead to a lot of "[place] porcelain factory" in English and French. –Vami
  • do something about these stone sculptors of only local prominence, perhaps no link and just two names, - the French one has at least commons images.
  • I've banished the Ferettis and fixed the link to Johann Wilhelm Beyer. –Vami

General: the alt texts for images are not yet really telling a blind person what can be seen, - and could you help finding the ill-links for German, Italian, Danish ... people? - The ALT texts for this one, please, ill-links in the next FAC, or actually for all articles you write. Did you see that one of them turned blue, thanks to LouisAlain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. On it. Will update on completion. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for great willingness to change. You may go over the alt texts once more, the queens is more visible as described than Casanova, but that's no reason not to support. Good luck! Let's get to Schloss Köthen ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor edit

  • Intending to review the prose here. ceranthor 14:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "In 2017, the palace attracted over 350,000 visitors." - "more than" probably works better than "over" here
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Philipp Joseph Jenisch, Johann Friedrich Nette, and Donato Giuseppe Frisoni " - presumably architects, but only the last has a link suggesting that... might add "architects" before listing their names
  • Added. –Vami
  • "It then survived World War II intact, the only palace of its kind to do so," - seems a bit vague - of its "kind" meaning what?
  • Changed to "It survived [...] of its size". –Vami
History
  • "Meanwhile, Nette began the interior of the Alter Hauptbau, which he would never finish. " - not sure that meanwhile adds much here
  • Removed. –Vami
  • "Nette made two trips to Prague and his native Brandenburg to expand his pool of talent, in 1708 hiring fresco painter Johann Jakob Stevens von Steinfels (de), stucco workers Tomasso Soldati and Donato Giuseppe Frisoni, then Andreas Quitainner in 1709, then Luca Antonio Colomba, Riccardo Retti and Diego Francesco Carlone." - seems like a run-on
  • Whittled down a bit. –Vami
  • "The Bildergalerie was decorated in 1731–32, while the Ahnengalerie was likewise decorated from 1731 to 1733" - be consistent; stick to dash ranges or writing out X "to" Y
  • Done. If more than one year, I use "[year] to [year]". –Vami
  • "Charles Eugene began the construction of a new ducal residence in Stuttgart in 1746, but continued to use Ludwigsburg as a secret residence until 1775" - I'd cut the comma before "but continued"
  • Done. –Vami
  • "La Guêpière completed the Schlosstheater from 1758 to 1759,[32] adding a stage, machinery, and the auditorium.[33] A wooden opera house, adorned with mirrors, was constructed in 1764–65, located east of the Alter Hauptbau.[4]" - same note as above with date ranges
  • Done. –Vami
  • "In 1764, Charles Eugene moved the ducal residence back to Stuttgart and made no more modifications to Ludwigsburg from 1770 onward." - I think this is an uncommon use of "onward", which usually refers to physical direction IMO. I'd replace with "after 1770" or something more prosaic
  • Did both. –Vami
  • "Charlotte continued to reside at Ludwigsburg and received many notable visitors from across Europe, among them some of her siblings.[39]" - seems a bit vague to not name any of these visitors
  • Sources don't list any so I shrank the sentence instead. –Vami
  • "In the early 1930s, Wilhelm Krämer (de) began hosting the Ludwigsburger Schloßkonzerte (Ludwigsburg Palace Concerts), which comprised six to ten concerts annually from 1933 to 1939, performed in the Order Hall, the Ordenskapelle, or the courtyard.[44]" - might split off the last bit following "performed..." into a separate sentence
  • Banished to the Shadow Realm instead. –Vami
Architecture
  • "who were educated in and experienced with Czech Baroque architecture and hired staff also experienced in that style.[16]" - I'd cut out the "also"; seems unnecessary for comprehension
  • Done. –Vami
  • "His friend and partner Antonio Isopi" - business partner, or romantic/sexual?
  • Fixed, "working partner". –Vami
  • "more grounded Classical form that would then be carried out by Johannes Klinckerfuß" - who is this? there's no article, so you should give a brief identifier for the lay reader (aka me)
  • Done. –Vami
  • " In 1810, the rooms on the beletage were remodeled in Neoclassical," - missing the word "style", perhaps?
  • Added. –Vami
  • "built from 1715 to 1719 to house courtiers" - is "to" the right word here?
  • Done, changed to "for housing courtiers". –Vami
  • "The Schlosskapelle avoided major remodeling in the 19th century and is today the most original area of the palace.[69][18]" - bit vague what you mean by original here. I think you mean not restored, but it's not crystal clear IMO
  • Axed. –Vami
  • "The final and southernmost part of the east wing is the 490 feet (150 m) long Ahnengalerie," - Should be foot, not feet. Add "|adj=on" to the conversion template and that should fix it.
  • Missed that, added. –Vami
  • "The Ordenskapelle was given its current appearance from 1746 to 1748 by Johann Christoph David Leger" - "given its current appearance"? What does this mean?
  • Also axed. –Vami
Grounds and gardens
  • "which attract 520–550,000 visitors annually." - previously, when listing date ranges, you've shortened the latter number rather than the first. keep it consistent throughout
  • Done. –Vami
  • "and attracted over 500,000 visitors by the end of May" - more than, not over
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "but was restored true to form from 1972 to 1982.[109]" - "true to form" meaning?
  • Removed. –Vami
  • "around 400 paintings" - about, not around
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "over 4,500 exhibits of examples of porcelain, ceramics, faience, and pottery" - more than, not over
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "children over four years of age about life" - same as above
  • Changed to "four years of age or older". –Vami
General
  • Restating this, but be consistent with either dash ranges for dates/years or writing out X "to" Y
  • Since fixed, I think. If work took place within two years, I use a dash. If not, the latter. –Vami
  • Refs should be in ascending order for consistency's sake - ie., for "Inspired by Munich and Versailles,[4][2]", it should be "Inspired by Munich and Versailles,[2][4]". Let me know if that needs clarifying.
  • Done. –Vami
  • Might need some WP:NBSPs - an example would be the break seen here "Michael Hörrmann, the director of the State Agency for Palaces and Gardens, valued the portrait at a minimum of €1 million.[50]"; or here "the Baden-Württemberg State Agency for Palaces and Gardens plans to have spent €4 million to sort out and restore some 500 paintings, 400 pieces of furniture, and 500 lamps, clocks, and sculptures,"
  • Lots of duplicated links throughout the article body - suggest installing this tool to help!
  • I have written a very long article and don't want readers scrolling up to get at pertinent links. I have, at least, restricted myself to a single link per section. –Vami
See MOS:DUPLINK; there should generally only be one link in the entire body section. ceranthor 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Used the tool you gave to vaporize a lot of duplinks, reducing links to one per body section (Architecture, History, etc.). –Vami

Besides a few concerns about vague wording, I think this is engaging and in good shape. Comments above. ceranthor 18:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the duplinks, I'm satisfied. I need to run through and read again to see if I missed any prose issues. ceranthor 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing so far! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Final thoughts
  • "The palace attracted more than 350,000 visitors in 2017." - I'd move this to the end of the third paragraph of the lead; I don't think it flows well in its current location
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Construction began in 1704 with Philipp Joseph Jenisch directing construction for Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg." - repetition of construction is distracting
  • Fixed, removed second "construction". –Vami
  • "Opposition to the palace itself was found at the ducal court because of Ludwigsburg's cost.[12]" - such passive voice here, and too much separation between the subject and verb for such a short sentence
  • Unpacified. –Vami
  • "Opposition to the palace itself was found at the ducal court because of Ludwigsburg's cost.[12] The populace also chafed at the palace's cost, one pastor in nearby Oßweil (de) saying at his pulpit, "May God spare our land the chastising that the Ludwigsburg brood of sinners conjure."[4]" - perhaps combine the two sentences and make them more concise?
  • Done. Still two sentences, but now the second is supporting the first rather than being its own thing. –Vami
  • "The Bildergalerie was decorated in 1731–32, while the Ahnengalerie was likewise decorated from 1731 1733." - missing an endash / two inconsistent date range styles
  • Simplified sentence, greater detail in "Architecture". –Vami
  • "As the master builder of what was now decried as the "sin palace", Frisoni and Paolo Retti " - should this be "master builders"?
  • Changed to "central figures in the construction of [...]" –Vami
  • "With his death, the nine-year-old Charles Eugene became Duke, beginning a regency that lasted until 1744.[29]" - I might substitute "after" for "With" here
  • Done. –Vami
  • "The palace's first restoration took place at the Alter Hauptbau in 1865.[42]" - any records of what happened between 1865 and the public opening?
  • No. My source jumps to 1939 from there. –Vami

Got about halfway through. Can post more once these are finished. Still noticing inconsistencies for date ranges and other stylistic things like that. ceranthor 14:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts (continued)
  • "Today's gardens were created in 1954 and arranged in a Baroque style for Ludwigburg's 250th birthday.[93] " - "today's" reads oddly to me... maybe better as "the current" or "the contemporary" gardens?
  • Axed as redundant sentence. –Vami
  • "The gardens comprise smaller themed gardens and the Fairy-Tale Garden (Märchengarten)," - "garden" is repeated three times in such close proximity here
  • Removed. –Vami
  • "which contains a folly and depictions of some fairy tales.[94] " - any details on which fairy tales? brief mention couldn't hurt
  • Added three examples. –Done
  • "From 1797, Duke Frederick II revived the South Garden in a Neoclassical style by dividing it into four equally sized lawns with a Mediterranean theme." - From 1797 until when?
  • Changed to "Around 1797", the source only gives 1797 for a date. –Vami
  • "The canal was filled in, maintenance reduced, and an orchard planted on the southern lawns that was later used to grow potatoes.[101]" - something about this sentence doesn't sit right with me
  • Revised. –Vami
  • "ensuring the future of the Blooming Baroque gardens.[102]" - might add "continuity" or something like that after "future"?
  • Added. –Vami
  • "and since 1995 one of the original stage pieces has been used for the Children's Stage (Junge Bühne).[33][127]" - one of the lights? bit vague here
  • A-ha, my source has some more information. The "original stage pieces" referred to a winter background. Added now. –Vami

ceranthor 20:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Charles Eugene was the next duke to reside at Ludwigsburg from 1747," - same issue as above with "from" with no end date
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "and brought the Rococo style with him." - what does this mean?...
  • Axed and moved into next sentence. –Vami
  • "Within the palace itself are two museums operated by the Landesmuseum Württemberg and dedicated to fashion and porcelain." - I'd add respectively assuming these two museums focus on fashion and porcelain, respectively
  • Added. –Vami
  • Still going thru and checking date range consistencies. ceranthor 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for fixing some of those! –Vami
  • The bit about WWII in the lead doesn't appear to be backed up in the text itself. ceranthor 14:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. –Vami

Support on 1a. Sorry for the delay and my onslaught of comments. Great work! ceranthor 13:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld edit

Just a quick passing comment, the lede looks very short for an FA quality article, I don't see any summary of the architecture for instance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the lead a can of spinach and it seems to have bulked up pretty good. Now contains an abbreviated architectural history of the palace. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was more some of the architectural details I was looking for, an FA quality article ideally needs to have a summary of each major section written into the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some detail about each wing to the lead's first paragraph. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "later used as a residency" What does residency mean here - residence?
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • Construction began in 1704 with Philipp Joseph Jenisch directing for Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg." This is clumsy. Maybe "Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg, appointed Philipp Joseph Jenisch to direct the work and construction began in 1704."
  • Added. –Vami
  • "Ludwigsburg Palace was opened to the public in 1918. The next year, and 100 years prior, it was where the constitutions of the Free People's State and Kingdom of Württemberg (respectively) were ratified." This is confusing. Maybe "Two constitutions were ratified in the palace, that of the Kingdom of Württemberg in 1819 and the Free People's State in 1919. The palace was opened to the public in 1918.
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Following the Battle of Blenheim,[2] Eberhard Louis spent the remainder of 1705 and early 1706 in Nymphenburg Palace.[3] Inspired by Munich and Versailles,[2][4] and having a pretext for a new palace in the Erlachhof,[5] Eberhard Louis renamed the estate Ludwigsburg (Louis's Castle) in 1705 and began studying the architectural trends of his day.[6] Eberhard Louis sent the theologian Philipp Joseph Jenisch [de] to study architecture abroad in 1703 and made him director of construction on his return the next year." This is confusing. You say "the remainder of 1705" but remainder after what? Presumably the battle of Blenheim, but you have not stated the date of the battle and why is it relevant where he stayed? It seems odd to say that the destruction of a hunting lodge was a pretext for building a palace. You then imply that Eberhard Louis was planning the palace in 1705-6 but go back to say in 1703.
  • I have finished a rewrite of the section. –Vami
  • "established it as the capital of the Duchy of Württemberg" I think "designated" would be better than "established".
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Jenisch returned to Württemberg and began construction from Weiss's plans in 1704" What happened to Weiss? Was Jenisch only instructed to complete Weiss's modest manor house? Why would he have been sent abroad to learn if that was all he was doing? These points need clarifying.
  • I have no idea who Weiss was, where he came from, or where he went, so I just axed him from the prose. –Vami
  • "A pastor in nearby Oßweil [de] said of the palace at his pulpit" When?
  • 1709; added. –Vami
  • "Nette based his plans on those of Jenisch" But as I pointed out above you say that Jenisch was building Weiss's modest manor house.
  • Fixed in the rewrite, I think. –Vami
  • It would be easier to follow the construction section if the plan was higher up and larger.
  • This would displace the portrait of Eberhard Louis and therefore the handy translation of his name and therefore Ludwigsburg. –Vami
  • "the building authority was aligned with him" What does this mean.
  • Rewrote this bit, how does it look now?
  • "so Frisoni brought on Giacomo Antonio Corbellini" I would say "brought in".
  • Done. –Vami
  • "decorated from 1731 1733" Presumably between 1731 and 1733.
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "continued to use Ludwigsburg as a secret residence until 1775" Why secret?
  • Removed "secret". –Vami
  • "In 1764, Charles Eugene moved the ducal residence back to Stuttgart" You have not said that it had been earlier moved from Stuttgart.
  • As it turns out, I misread the source - Charles Eugene officially made Ludwigsburg his capital. Fixed now. –Vami
  • "Ludwigsburg Palace had already been the residence of Frederick II since 1795,[4] who made it his summer residence.[32] On 18 May 1797, the duke married Charlotte, daughter of King George III, at St James's Palace in Westminster.[34] They used Ludwigsburg as their summer residence" Repetition of "residence" three times and "summer" twice.
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • Hey, thanks for your comments so far. In the course of addressing them I've been stumbling over an abundance of information I missed and have since added. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • "A witness and his interpreter, an American soldier, being addressed by a civilian lawyer". The caption should say at the Borkum trial. Also the picture description says that it shows the defence counsel addressing the court.
  • Added. –Vami
  • "It was originally built just to house the apartments of Eberhard Louis and his daughter-in-law, Princess Henrietta Maria." You say this is 1705-8, but the marriage of Henrietta Maria was not until 1716.
  • Removed "and his daughter-in-law" –Vami
  • "The ceiling fresco was lost, when the gallery was divided into smaller rooms from 1808, until its restoration from 2000 to 2004." What does this mean - that the fresco was covered over for a century and revealed when the partitions into smaller rooms were removed?
  • I misread the source, the frescoes were removed. Fixed now. –Vami
  • "On the second floor is the duchess' box" duchess' box is ungrammatical.
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "Thouret walled up the first-floor windows in 1807 and 1708 for seating room and for the king's canopied throne under its star-studded semidome." 1808? to increase the seating room?
  • Yes, fixed. –Vami
  • " It was built in 1719 and 1920" 1920?
  • Fixed; it was 1720.
  • "The actual kitchen, the Küchenbau, was built separate from the palace in its west" to its west?
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "a butcher's shop" Was there a shop inside the kitchen?
  • Yes. "Inside are seven hearths, a bakery, a butcher's shop, several pantries, and the quarters for the servant staff in the attic and on the first floor."
  • "The grand staircases on either side of the vestibule, from 1798 called the King's and Queen's Staircases, which lead up to the beletage of the Neuer Hauptbau." This is ungrammatical.
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "The south garden was into four equally sized lawns"?
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "a knight of the House of Hohenstaufen who is."?
  • Edit scar, removed. –Vami
  • "Construction of Ludwigsburg Palace began in 1704, but by 1710 Eberhard Louis had decided to use Ludwigsburg Palace as his main residence rather than just a hunting lodge." You say above that he decided in 1704 to build a small palace, not a hunting lodge.
  • Fixed. –Vami

Comments from Johnbod edit

  • I don't really see any of the four hatnotes are necessary. If anywhere, some should be at Ludwigsburg.
  • "Blooming Baroque" gardens - this reads oddly in English. Is it a project/brand name dreamed up for a recent replanting? If so, I think rather too much use of it is made (34 mentions).
  • Blooming Baroque (translated from Blühendes Barock) is the official name for the gardens of Ludwigsburg Palace. –Vami
  • Para 2 of the lead is too long & detailed. Too many dukes & too many architects. Save them for later. Or possibly that stuff should be in an overview section below the lead, which also could have the wider context of city & palace, alternate capital & where & what the Duchy of W is anyway (which certainly needs explaining to English-speakers). Now after the lead the article plunges straight into a really detailed & dense history, followed by an equally dense description of the building, which is probably more than most readers will want.
  • I've trimmed Para 2 down. –Vami
  • History - you need to integrate the development of the palace & city better. You should probably start by explaining the Duchy of W a bit - trust me, no English-speakers know this. Was the area entirely rural in 1700? How far from from the palace is a) the city, b) Stuttgart?
  • Done. –Vami
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Johnbod, are you still planning to add something? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I was, but if you are ready to close then please go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

Unless I missed them we still need image and source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image review was in archive 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a review of Pius Bieri's website "Süddeutscher Barock" in the first archive. Self-published website, but but several authors on Google Books refer to or credit his work in their own. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? --Laser brain (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. See my last response in this subsection. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Requested! --Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the source review has been conducted I think we can promote but I note many duplinks in the article -- pls review/rationalise; you can use this script to highlight them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Books
  • Recommend that exact dates be removed and years used instead for consistency
  • Done. –Vami
  • Set this in its own section. Also, how are the news sources not web sources? If I were setting off a section, it would be "official sources" for those published by various parts of the German government.
  • Curzon is published by a niche press, but she appears to have a decent reputation as an amateur historian and I have no reason to believe that she's unreliable for what she's being cited for. The rest of the publishers appear to be mass-market or academic and can be assumed to be reliable.
News
  • All sources seem legitimate
Web (general)
  • I would get rid of all the |website= parameters, as duplicative of the urls and not adding any information.
  • Done. –Vami
  • StampWorld—appears to be user-generated content, SPS, or otherwise very dubious source. However, it looks like you've cited the information to a better source so you could just remove StampWorld.
  • Purged. Other citation there had the same information, sans the postal stamp, so I removed the stamp. –Vami
  • Zum.de appears to be self-published, per its about page. However, the source appears to have been published by the Badische Heimat, which could be listed as a publisher.
  • Added. –Vami
Official sources
  • Assume reliability.

Spot checks to come. Catrìona (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks
  • Checking every 10th source starting with #3, or failing that the next available source that I can access. If used multiple times, I'm only checking the first two references.
  • Verified: 3, 14, 25, 43, 53, 66 (at least a bit of the information—assume the rest is in the second source), 73 (ditto), 83, 94, 103, 114, 123
  • Issues: Could you give the quote in 33 that verifies the text? I'm having trouble finding it but it could be my bad German.
  • If that is the Casanova quote in "Residence", that comes from Wenger's book, in English. –Vami
Additional sources

I think the article is very complete as is. No terribly important additional sources were found with English and German searches into Google Scholar and Google Books. Catrìona (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vami, Catrìona, it looks like most of this has been actioned, is there more to go? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sources. Catrìona (talk) 10:51, 22 December 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/archive2&oldid=875634582"