Talk:Parc Jean-Jacques Rousseau
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Parc Jean-Jacques-Rousseau from the French Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. (This notice applies to version 414319197 and subsequent versions of this page.) |
Problems
[edit]The article has some issues other than those of translation. It contains some statements of original research and opinion like "La dénomination « Parc Jean-Jacques Rousseau » n'a rien d'historique et il serait réducteur de limiter cette création paysager au seul souvenir de l'écrivain" ("'Jean Jacques Rousseau Park' is not the historical name and it is reductive to dedicate this work of re-created nature solely to the memory of the writer"). However, this is sourced to Catherine Dumas, Ermenonville: un paysage philosophique, 2001, so perhaps there is some copyvio of this offline source.
There is also some material here which is not supported by the French original, such as " The Château d'Ermenonville is somewhat of a folly" and "which is a little paradoxical since it was never meant to be taken literally but as a homage to different philosphical ideas".
Generally, my feeling about this article is that it goes into very dense detail about a less notable French park. I am wondering (short of stubbing it) if we can create a less detailed version or whether the whole article must be translated. I would be happy to take a cut at making a shorter article out of this, not sure about translating every exhausting detail. I would store anything I delete in my userspace so others can think about restoring it later. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I completely agree with this. The article will be much better if the less interesting detail and the opinion is removed. Not sure if you really need to store the deleted material in userspace because everything is preserved in the article history. I also suspected copyvio; do you think if the article is rewritten as it is translated and shortened that could head off any potential problem? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)