Talk:Claude Nicolas Ledoux

Merge from fr:Claude Nicolas Ledoux

Hello, I've been translating the article on Ledoux from fr: and should have a draft done tonight. Now it is being held at User:DVD R W/Claude Nicolas Ledoux, anyone can edit it of course. I'll do a history merge tonight if there are no objections. I know it is short notice, but I kept most of the article that is here now and have expanded it quite a bit. DVD+ R/W 23:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First crayons

Since Giano asked (where did he describe it) about his first pencils from his godmother, I've asked Justelipse. That he got them from his parents is likely. It would be nice to find where his words are printed on this and other matters though, especially since this is quoted. Any other parts that need cites? DVD+ R/W 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Justelipse said the quote about the pencils is from: Michel Gallet, Les architectes parisiens du XVIIIe siècle, Paris, Mengès, 1995, p. 302. But that in the Prospectus of L'Architecture considérée sous le rapport de l'art, des mœurs et de la législation (Paris, C.F. Patris, Imprimeur de l'Académie de législation, s.d. [1802], p. 26 Ledoux says : « mes premiers crayons effilés par vous » which is addressed to émanations célestes, and his mother. Then Justelipse changed the text from the quote « lui donnèrent [ses] premiers crayons » to l'initièrent au dessin, which is more like, "encouraged him to develop his drawing skills". Then Joe removed the ref, so I don't think one is needed. DVD+ R/W 01:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination on HOLD for 7 days

This article is looking pretty good. I think it's right on the cusp of GA even as it stands, but I'd like to take this opportunity to buff it up just a little more:

• Watch out for terms specific to architecture, etc. that haven't been wikilinked. I know these can be hard to spot for someone who is immersed in the field. Pretend you know nothing about the field, and try to see words like "prostyle," "peristyle" etc.
• Please translate Fr. expressions.
• The article says "most were destroyed in the nineteenth century.." and the Britannica quote in the commented section gives more details. This is interesting and significant stuff. This idea could perhaps be developed a bit further.
• I had an overall impression that the writing could be tightened a bit. I had a "huh?" moment trying to connect these two sentences:
  • "...haven't been altered beyond recognition. In certain cases, the entry was framed..."

...granted, both sentences are about "Architecture for the ferme générale," but the ideas seemed disconnected, as if they belonged in different paragraphs.

• Watch out for excessive wordiness or "peacock words." I saw one sentence where Ledoux had to be "parsimonious." These and similar low-frequency words can be replaced with something slightly more high-frequency. I'm not saying reduce everything to two syllables, but...
• Also, watch out for excessive praise and grandiose words. I didn't see any but I was merely skimming.
• I put several "fact" tags in the article. Some of them may refer to facts that are referenced elsewhere in the text; if so then just remove them & explain clearly in the edit summary. BUT I did NOT put "fact" tags everywhere I could I have. In fact, there are stretches of biographical and historical info that seem to be missing some citation of some kind. When you go for FA, they will probably ask for more, so it's better to just do as many as you can now. ;-) Don't just fix the places where I put tags; be proactive and place citations anywhere that a significant point is made.

I'm putting this article on HOLD for one week, but frankly I don't think it will take a week to repair. You may want to find an editor who writes crisp prose but knows nothing of architecture to be a "second pair of eyes."

Good work! Drop me a line if you have any q's. --Ling.Nut 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Do Wikipedia's articles on art and architecture really require more editors who "write crisp prose but know nothing"... and who decide whether an article is "good" enough to be a "GA"? --Wetman 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wetman

My point in saying that was that someone who was unfamiliar with the field of architecture would be less likely to overlook technical terms due to familiarity.

However, you seem unhappy with my comments. If so, please let me know. I'll withdraw from this discussion (and wish you luck).--Ling.Nut 21:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have gone ahead and contacted someone who I hope may be more to your liking. I'm withdrawing from this discussion. I wish you all the very best of luck with your submission!
• Cheers --Ling.Nut 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I presume Ling Nut means me, although I don't see why my editing would necessarily be any more to Wetman's liking here. Although I might be able to help out with "crisp prose", I know next to nothing about architecture and I would agree that at least one reviewer of this article ought to have a grounding in the subject.

I imagine I've been invited here because I've expressed strong reservations about the uneven quality control and subjectivity of judgement I've observed in the GA process. Most notoriously, I called GA "a joke". Some articles are given minute (and often highly subjective) scrutiny, while others are passed with the most glaring problems unremarked. There is now a debate about the whole GA process and its failings at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?. I would strongly encourage Wetman to join that conversation. Thanks. --Folantin 11:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize again. I had hoped for a review from the perspective of someone who appreciates art, since the contributor to the article mentioned "art" in his/her remarks. I am taking personal responsibility for the goal of finding reviewers for this article, although I am not reviewing it myself. Good luck with your submission.

--Ling.Nut 11:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For FA, the article will need someone who "write crisp prose but know nothing". For GA, no. All that's really needed are one or two more cites to replace those annoying "fact" tags. Best, Moreschi 17:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review

A Good Article review has opened on this article, anyone is welcome to help in the discussion. Homestarmy 13:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

I have volunteered to complete the promotion process following up on what has been stated by the reviewers on the Good Article review page. I noted that some of the uncited sentences have been removed. The only other things that ought to be done before promotion are

• Provide sources for the 8 citation-needed tags that are left.
• Translate some of the French.
  • Administration des Eaux et Forêts could be "Water and Forestry Administration"
  • dépendances could be "smaller dependent buildings on an estate".
  • monument d'esclavage could probably be better translated as "monument to slavery"
  • L'Architecture considérée sous le rapport de l'art, des mœurs et de la législation could be kept as it is since it is a title, but a translation in parentheses should be provided.
  • terrible in French has different connotations. As I understand it, depending on the context, it could mean "good/great" or "horrible" or "tough/difficult". So it may be wise to translate the sentence vous êtes un terrible architecte even if the meaning is the same in English.
• Remove the dead wikilinks.

I think you have enough time to make the changes, but if not, just leave a message on my talk page and we can work out an arrangement. --RelHistBuff 12:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the date of the original review by Ling.Nut on 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC), the article has passed the 7-day hold limit, hence the GA process calls on me to decline promotion of this article. However, the article is very close. If at any time the fixes are put in place, then please renominate the article and leave a message on my talk page. I will re-review and promote it immediately, hence avoiding the queue. --RelHistBuff 10:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claude Nicolas Ledoux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020055746/http://ledoux2006.doubs.fr/ to http://ledoux2006.doubs.fr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claude Nicolas Ledoux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930195150/http://www.insecula.com/salle/MS02134.html to http://www.insecula.com/salle/MS02134.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)