Talk:Louvre/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Old commenrs

Perhaps I'm wrong, I value these pictures. Surely there are better one available that give more insight, particularly the exterior....DW

I rather like them. They show the architectural detail inside the building, and show its history as a royal palace. A nice outside overall shot would be nice too, of course. -- Tarquin
I've replaced the fireplace pics with three pics I took in 2001, one is an exterior as Tarquin suggested. The other two show a painting and a sculpture. I agree with DW, I believe that the majority of visitors to the Louvre article would be looking for a pic of the place itself and of some exhibits. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I!! -- Adrian Pingstone 08:49 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Some of the text at bottom overlaps with the picture caption at 800 x 600 resolution. What can be done to fix this? -- Lee M 02:28, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the following paragraph:

"I. M. Pei's glass pyramid entrance, 1985 - 1989, providing a modern entrance to the various museums, seems in retrospect to be the inevitable and perfect unobtrusive solution to an impossible design problem. It was highly controversial when it was built."

First - some clarification of the first sentence would be appreciated. What exactly was the design problem, and how was this pyramid the solution to it?

Second - I find a lack of objectivity in the description of the pyramid. "Inevitable"? What is that supposed to mean? "Perfect"? "Unobtrusive"? I have not been to the Louvre, but having seen the photo of the front entrance, I would argue that the pyramid is neither perfect nor unobtrusive. It appears to be a very fine structure in its own right - but, to my eye, it doesn't exactly fit seamlessly within the more classical surroundings.

I imagine that the controversy that existed when the pyramid was built remains with us to this day; a rewording to reflect both sides of the controversy might alleviate the problem with the paragraph's objectivity. --- TyroCat Nov. 7, 2004

Perhaps if "providing a modern entrance to the various museums" isn't expansive enough, you'd enlarge upon the "design problem" specifics for Wikipedia readers. Did you find better adjectives, perhaps from well-known figures, when you Googled the issue? Any assessment of esthetic success might be characterized as a "problem with objectivity." Did your reading find that the Wikipedia assessment is not a mainstream assessment, then? --Wetman 09:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The design problem was the following. Where do we put the new exhibit halls, the new storage facilities and the new labs? Where do we put the new entryway, given that the old one is insuffcient to handle crowdsThe Seine is behind the Louvre and untouchable buildings surround it. The problem was known and studied several generations ago and the solution was always the same: Dig up the central "Napoleon court", right where the pyramid is today. Yes, there was a controversy over the pyramid (back in 1985 when all these were still in planning) , but it was mainly because of the vast sums of money involved in this new structure. Some would have preferred that more money go into renovating the existing structures with only a little for some humbler new strutures. And of course there was the fact that Pei, the main architect was a foreigner! The fact that he was also a US citizen may or may not also have made things worse, depending on how badly an ungrateful (from the french point of view) Reagan administration was treating France during the many years that the controversy lasted in the late 1980s. The pyramid was an ideal solution becasue it was both transparent and reflective depending on lighting conditions, and this ambivalentce seduced president François Mitterrand and many other French intellectuals, including the future and after that actual presidentJacques Chirac. At least, they made a lot of it! You could see the old parts of the Louvre through it at times and at others it reflected cleanly the sky and the topp of the old parts. It was a perfect statement as an entry point to the Louvre. You could not miss the entrance, and this is a crucial design point. This will give you an idea of the former controversy: http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/documentation/photographie/expos/ciel_de_paris/louvretx.htm Take a look at this photo of the pyramid within the context of the buildings of the Louvre, instead of singled out. It shows you that all of the Louvre buildings around it are taller, and the new reflecting pools and fountains (sadly not impressive in this particular photo) surround it at the base, minimizing its impact. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/pei/louvre_rfo.jpg This one also gives a good idea of the sizes involved. http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~sedwards/photos/paris2002/Images/P3021302%20Louvre%20Pyramid.jpg And there is of course, the fact that since the Louvre surroinds the pyramid, it is invisible from all the other three sides: http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/fr/Louvre/Louvre.jpg I did a few searches and have not found any lingering dissatisfaction over the pyramid. I have found however a great deal of pride over the excellence of the French hi-tech construction techniques used and the French savoir faire in putting it all together without harming the old Louvre. --AlainV 11:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AlainV, your material perhaps should go at I. M. Pei, with a mention at Louvre that there is further material at the Pei entry? Then no one could have problems... though an anon. user now seems to have an issue with the Louvre being one of the "greatest" museums, and thinks that's a "weasel word"! --Wetman 15:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Notable art

This good subsection should be filled out, referring to "What links here" to include all Louvre works of art with their own entries at Wikipedia. "Your assignment, should you care to accept it..." --Wetman 16:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this the same museum by the name museum's Salle des Etats ?

Layout

A strip of illustrations down the right hand edge like a pane of postage stamps? This layout needs the elegant touch of that master of layout design, User:Duncharris. --Wetman 10:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think its pretty elegant right now. Its more elegant than your std. web page.--Muchosucko 1 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)

Axe historique

"Its central courtyard, now occupied by the Louvre glass pyramid, lies in the axis of the Champs-Élysées, and thus forms the nucleus from which the Axe historique springs." Anyone who has stood there knows this is not true. The Arc du Carrousel provides the pivot to the slightly off axes. The development of the "axe historique is discussed at Champs-Elysées. Anyone care to rethink this statement and give it a rewrite? --Wetman 04:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it's usefull to mention the axe historique (at least in the intro) as it confuses readers. I removed it in my rewrite of intro. --Julien 09:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures Removed

This article was perfectly fine before, and now all but one of the pictures were removed. What's the deal? -Devin

Ok, never mind

I guess the pictures were removed as a result of vandalism....my mistake. -Devin

Bleach and Lana - Missed Vandalism?

I have done a search through google, and cannot find any reference to Lana in the gallery containing the Mona Lisa, and also cannot find any reference to an incident involving bleach. Particularly the bleach incident I would expect to see as major news, and I certainly did not see any of that during my trip to the louvre last spring. IS this vandalism? If it is legitimate, "The most fantastic works of art" seems rather NPOV, especially since its talking about the louvre, which is full of MUCH MUCH better known works (since I havent even heard of Lana, if she is even there).

AID votes

Louvre (36 votes, stays until July 18)

Nominated May 9, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by July 18, 2006
Support
  1. HAM 22:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. PDXblazers 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Paul James Cowie 05:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Felixboy 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Steven 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. CrnaGora 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Okinawadude 16:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. RexNL 22:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Kimchi.sg 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Empty2005 13:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Duran 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Krytan 22:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. False Prophet 14:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. ❝Sverdrup❞ 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Fram 09:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Pedro 10:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Kristbg 15:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Silence 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Sam 18:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. C-squared 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Pruneau plum 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Blake's Star 14:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Valentinian (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Julien 22:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. --Gaius Julius Caesar 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Behind the veil 18:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Jazriel 09:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Peirigill 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Cribananda 02:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  32.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  34. —Mets501 (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  35. chemica 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  36. --SasaStefanovic • 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • As one of the most famous art museums today and historically speaking probably one of the most influential, this is one article I would very much like to see attain FA status. HAM 22:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely! The biggest museum in the world with some of the most important works of art in the history of man! Also, with the Da Vinci Code movie coming out soon, this page could see more hits. PDXblazers 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There are not any truly excellent pages for Art Museums. It would nice to set an example and create a model. Sam 18:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The French article is much more detailed, we could use it. Pruneau plum 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess we need a critical mass of people who can read French if we want to borrow from the French article. --chemica 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

Recently there has been debate within the antiques industry regarding the provenance of a bronze monkey held in the Louvre initially believed to be the work of famous sculptor Giambologna. However, following the finding of two other bronze monkeys by British antique dealer Colin Wilson, the validity of the monkeys held in the Louvre, claimed by 'experts' to be the real work of Giambologna, has been called into question. The Louvre monkey is simply too deep to fit the niche in which it was supposedly situated on the fountain it was originally designed and created for. The quality of the monkey in the Louvre is also up for debate; the form is not lifelike, the fur is not realistic and the pose does not match the poses of the monkeys in the Uffizi drawing, which after all, is the only evidence for the monkeys being in the niches. Colin Wilson's monkeys, however, do match this drawing, are made of a gunmetal dated to the 16th/17th century, are unrefined and of a high lead content, all of which are traits of a work of Giambologna. Despite all this, plus a number of other reasons, speculations and facts, the debate rages on.

I have removed this paragraph from the main text and put it here, because I don't think this is a main aspoect of the Louvre. On the other hand, the info in it is interesting and should somewhere in Wikipedia be kept. Fram 08:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It think it should go into an article either about the sculptor or the artist. --chemica 18:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

New image added

I think the new image I added is placed in an incorrect position, but I would still like it the article. Any thought? I think it adds different perspective.

I will check it. Ryūlóng 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks all right. Ryūlóng 22:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but I think it looks a bit crammed... i.e. too many photographs... Troubleshooter 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess you can't really go by me. My Screen resolution is 1920 x 1200. Ryūlóng 22:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice :) Troubleshooter 22:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article

Very nice. This is a very important topic and you all have done a good job of doing it justice here, with a lot of detail, incredible pictures and good references. While I don't hesitate to promote this article to "good" status, but to be featured, you will need a lot more in-line references, and also I would expand it more, perhaps adding a section about famous curators and directors, day to day operations, educational outreach of the museum, etc.... I would say it needs more information on how it is a living museum, and not just about the building and the art. I would even say that would be mandatory, in my opinion, for it to get FA status. But overall, good job.--Esprit15d 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

GA review

An intiative was launched by a group of users involved in the development of the Good Articles project with the goal to ensure that all Good Articles are held to a high standard, and that all current Good Articles conform with the current quality criteria. This review has the aim to establish how well this article complies with them. They will be listed in italics, one by one, and review comments will be put below in normal type.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
It is comprehensible, but the prose is hardly compelling. Sentences like "J. A. du Cerceau also worked on the Louvre" or "Perrault had translated the Roman architect Vitruvius into French" are two examples from two ends of the spectrum of very un-encyclopedic style that can be found in the article. Another questionable sentence - "The Louvre holds works of art through till 1848". And there are more.
(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
The lead section is OK bar one thing (see below). The "Access" section is currently very short for its top-level caption and actually only refers to the Metro, linking to one Metro station as "Main article" (why not the other too?). "Notable works" and "notable paintings" sections duplicate each other at the moment. I would suggest combining both into some neat table or even a template. Modest use of non-top-level section captions.
(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline:
I am not an expert on that, and there are other, more important issues here, so excuse me for not reviewing the article thoroughly for that. Still, the "381 milimeters" is in bold type in the Pyramide Inversée section for no reason.
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
I believe quite a few more architectural/historic/art terms could be wikilinked. Examples: "palace of the arts", "edifice", "engraving". Whoever wrote the part on Perrault and Bernini clearly got carried away and wrote a commentary for an architectural album instead of an encyclopedic summary.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
Discussed below.
(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;
A total failure to conform with this criterion. Only three references in total, no other sources quoted. Third link is not appropriately described (no actual source or date given).
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
Those that are present seem OK to me, but they only exist for some more minor factoids.
(d) it contains no elements of original research.
Until inline citations appear in this article, almost everything could be original research. But the part on Perrault and Bernini reads very OR anyway.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
Absolutely no. The history of the building itself extends only to the late 19th century. There is precious little on the history of the collection and the museum itself as an institution. A description of the collection is missing too. The role in culture/literature is not discussed, only some minor trivia. All of of these could be good topics for entire articles, let alone sections of this article!
(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
As a pendant to the above, the section on the inverted pyramid, which is only moderately related to Louvre, is longer than on the proper Louvre Pyramid. The references to the DaVinci Code strike as being overly highlited (e.g. in the opening section) while so many other cultural references are missing.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
Again, Perrault and Bernini.
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
I don't think there are any mentioned, so no problems here.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

Edits are infrequent, and some vandalism seems purely random. Theoretically this shouldn't be a problem, though the article fails to meet other important criteria, so this is irrelevant anyway.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
Tags are OK, but the image in the infobox and the paintings in the gallery have no captions. The style of the captions is not consistent - some are normal type, some italicized, and the panoramas are tagged yet differently (perhaps there are technical limitations as to the latter).
(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
There is no section for such comments per se, so I'll mention it here that the choice and placement of images might not be the best - there are photos who show the Louvre Pyramid better in the Commons, and the panoramas break the text quite strangely. At the beginning of the "Construction and architecture" section photos appear both on the left and right, which "squeezes" the text considerably.

In view of all that, I have to delist. Overall, the article is clearly underdeveloped for the broad and interesting topic it should cover. I believe it is still quite far away from the stage at which it could be considered a good GA nominee. I can't think of a really superb example to follow, but the National Gallery, London article, even with all its deficiencies, appears to cover its subject much better. Bravada, talk - 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WWII

There's nothing mentioned in the history section about WWII. Wouldn't the Nazis have wanted to cart some of the art back to Germany ? If they did, what happened ? If not, who stopped them ? I would have thought (ignoramus that I am) that this period in history was worth a note. Thanks--Ordew 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What a mess!

Hi, this article is an absolute mess, I think it needs to be scrapped and completely overhauled.

Its appearance is ridiculous, where is the structure, extremely bad image placement, they don't even compliment the article.

The history section is a disaster, and it is full of conjecture and nonsense in places. In fact, this article is a like soap opera that would likely appear in tabloid newspapers and fan magazines.

Am I the only one who sees this?

How was this ever a Good Article, makes me laugh, and there is no way that this is even B standard.

Cheers --ImperialCollegeGrad 12:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to it and would help you out with it. To start with, some points for suggestions I am mentioning below.

  • More text less pictures, personally I am against galaries. Commons has many more pictures on Louvre and a reference to it should be enough.
  • Improving references and source information.
  • Copy editing the article. STTW (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

are you sure?

are you sure theres no more info on the pyramid? i need it badly.--Harlequin12 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

picture taking forbidden?

The citation for the assertion that picture taking is being gradually forbidden at the Louvre goes to a completely unrelated page on their website. Additionally, I was there a few months ago and picture taking was mostly not restricted, except for the crown jewels and the Mona Lisa, nor were those restrictions being enforced. Finally, I can't find anything on their site one way or another about photography. I'm going to remove this bit of information, but if someone can find a cite for this, or for it having been a policy that was later rescinded, or being introduced incredibly slowly, or something, please reinsert it. Natalie 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

and the louvre was what before it became a museum??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.220.79 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was at the special exhibition on Praxiteles a few months ago and got a curt pas de photo, though there were no signs up. I was surprised because I had never been scolded for taking photos in the Louvre before. So apparently with special exhibitions they have enforcement. Robert K S 05:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louvre/Archive_1&oldid=1100448744"