Talk:Louvre

Louvre was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 30, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 19, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 8, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
May 7, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
May 26, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 29, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
October 9, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
December 19, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 8, 2004, November 8, 2005, November 8, 2006, August 10, 2011, August 10, 2012, August 10, 2013, August 10, 2015, August 10, 2018, August 10, 2020, and August 10, 2023.
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of July 4, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Louvre article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 6 months

France: Paris Top‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Architecture High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums Top‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jrxijown (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jrxijown (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the GA criteria due to the numerous uncited text throughout the article, including the entire archaeology section. Is anyone interested in fixing up the article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That entire section is in fact referenced by the photo next to it - they are all there (what will the Louvre do now it has run out of space?). But the section is not very helpful to the reader & might be better listified. What were your other concerns? Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: My biggest concern is that there is a lot of uncited text throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Are you willing to add these citations where necessary? Also, "Controversy" sections have become discontinued on Wikipedia due to NPOV concerns with the title and a belief that these should be incorporated into other parts of the article. Would you be willing to move these paragraphs to other sections, perhaps the history section? Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should be asking "Are you able to add these citations where necessary?" This sort of phrasing is what prompts complaints about your tone. No, I'm not, any more than you (especially if you have access to a library). Your ""Controversy" sections have become discontinued on Wikipedia" is not true at all, and a typical overstatement. Where was this ban enacted- link please? The tendency of many inexperienced editors to call every academic or political discussion a "controversy" has rightly been criticised, but in many cases, such as here, the prominence of a number of issues in the French and global media justifies the use of the term. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT on WP:NPOV gives an overview of giving too much weight to one point of view. Controversy sections inherently give rise to undue weight, as controversial actions of the article's topic is given a whole section of text, which is easy to find, while praise or positive accomplishments of the museum are interspersed within several sections of the article. Controversy might also not be the best header for this section: "Nazi looting" describes how the French government took steps to identify and return artwork to their owners/previous owners: is this a controversy, or would it be better classified as an initiative of the museum, or a government policy?

As for my tone, I will keep in mind the feedback that you are giving. Are you able to add citations where necessary, and assess if the "citation needed" tags in the article should still be placed there? I am not able to add these citations myself. Z1720 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Logo?

This is beyond my paltry abilities as a Wikipedian, but I think there should be a logo (preferably svg) in the sidebar just like there is for the Met, the Louvre, and other major museums. Mpaniello (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Louvre

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some wonderful prose. Unfortunately, it also has some uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Some of the uncited text has been marked with "citation needed" since August 2020 and August 2022. While some citations were added earlier this year, there is still some work to be done. Hopefully, this GAR will bring additional editors who will help fill in the missing references needed. I also think the "21st-century" section needs a review to remove the non-notable information and merge the short paragraphs together: a subject-matter expert would be helpful here to evaluate the information for its notability. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 21st century section is very well cited, as is the entire page. Not only does this rate its 'good article' status, it should be promoted to a feature. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there's still uncited text, and this should not be taken to FA status without it being fixed. 750 h+ 15:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.