Template:Did you know nominations/Napoleonic looting of art
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Amkgp (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Napoleonic looting of art
c. 1802 engraving of the plundered art being paraded through Paris, including the Horses of Saint Mark at center
- ... that during the Napoleonic looting of art, French soldiers destroyed the Venetian state ship, the Bucentaur, and melted down its gold decorations for loot? Source: "on January 9th 1798, French soldiers reduced all the beautiful carved wood and all the gold trappings to small pieces, then took them to the island of San Giorgio Maggiore and set fire to them to retrieve the gold." The Bucintoro
- ALT1:... that many of the Louvre's acquisitions during Napoleon's reign was art plundered by the Napoleonic armies, selected under the supervision of curator Vivant Denon and paraded through Paris' streets? Source: "The main purpose of Napoleon was to bring to Paris as many of the art treasures of Europe as he could." "[French officials] were horrified at the idea of an unceremonious arrival in the capital ... Instead it was decided to bring them 'quietly and modestly and as economically as possible' as far as the outskirts of Paris, then in a procession across the city from the Jardin des Plantes to the Champ de Mars, and only after the celebration there would they be deposited in the new National Museum in the Louvre." Quynn
Created by Wingedserif (talk). Self-nominated at 20:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC).
Article comes from AFC and was nominated upon its move to mainspace. It is long enough for sure. However, it is orange tagged. One for sure I see is accurate, the sourcing tag. Every paragraph needs to have at least one inline citation, and I see several that have none. The other tag, the article being unbalanced towards certain viewpoints, I am unsure of, as there is no talk page discussion on the matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: Definitely agree it needs more sources; another editor tagged the article, so I'll have to go looking for more. For the unbalanced tag, I had placed it myself on the draft, out of cautiousness, because the earlier version of the article almost entirely focused on Italy. Since then, I've added a number of academic sources and removed the biased language. If another editor agrees that the article doesn't seem POV, I'd be glad to remove it. —WingedSerif (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wingedserif, I'll take a closer look and let you know what I think. At first glance, I didn't see the need for it. Lemme know when the sourcing is addressed and I'll complete the review. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: I... think I've done it. Lmk what you think. —Wingedserif (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing... I'll have it looked over by the weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Muboshgu SL93 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not the first time I've said I'd do something and forgotten. I'll check right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I've read through more closely, and I am concerned about the tone and think the viewpoints tag is justified. Frankly it reads more to me more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. There are still citations needed in the article in various places that are obvious to me, and probably others that are less obvious. At 39kb prose, this article is a monster and I don't see it being postable to the mainpage any time soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review, although I'm sorry to hear that it's not up to snuff yet. —Wingedserif (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Muboshgu SL93 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: I... think I've done it. Lmk what you think. —Wingedserif (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wingedserif, I'll take a closer look and let you know what I think. At first glance, I didn't see the need for it. Lemme know when the sourcing is addressed and I'll complete the review. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: Definitely agree it needs more sources; another editor tagged the article, so I'll have to go looking for more. For the unbalanced tag, I had placed it myself on the draft, out of cautiousness, because the earlier version of the article almost entirely focused on Italy. Since then, I've added a number of academic sources and removed the biased language. If another editor agrees that the article doesn't seem POV, I'd be glad to remove it. —WingedSerif (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
