Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Catherine de' Medici's building projects/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catherine de' Medici's building projects

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because architecture isn't my field (history is; and art, a little bit) and I need to know if the article contains any bloopers and if it reads coherently. I originally dipped into this subject only to help me fill in the arts section of the Catherine de' Medici article. It's a blurry and difficult area because most of the architecture hasn't survived. Late sixteenth-century French architecture and art are murky fields altogether (but all the more reason to try and bring them into focus). I quickly realised that I could only hope to get a handle on this subject if I read up on it properly; as I did so, I became more and more fascinated, and this article began to emerge, growing in prickly layers like coral. I'd really like to make it a featured article, if I can; but first I need to know if it's in the ball park and what needs to improve. Many thanks in advance to anyone who reviews it.

Thanks,

qp10qp 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, knock me down with a feather, a Sandy review! I've always thought you were avoiding me. With your eye for formatting, this should be shipshape in a jiffy, and no mistake.
I've kicked off the article properly now, per your advice (smacks one's wrist).
I've shortened the captions as much as I can. I like to make captions meaty and characterful, where possible, but I notice that guideline urges succinctness, which is a shame, given this is such a visual article (I couldn't cut much out of that Silvestre caption, because the explanation there is so bound with the drawing). I suppose I had put the full stops in to avoid inconsistency. Anyway, I have now followed the guideline (drat it), with full stops for full sentences and none for fragments, though I had to torture the syntax in places, where a sentence fragment had preceded a full sentence! --qp10qp 05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course I avoid you on review; your articles are usually perfect :-) No, no, no, I didn't mean you needed to shorten the captions, I only meant to remove punctuation from the very short sentence fragment captions! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the "avoid periods at the end of image captions" only applies to "extended phrases" (whatever they are), and not complete sentences. My rule of thumb is that if the caption is long enough, or complex enough, to need punctuation (eg. commas), then finish it with a period. It jars my copyediting eye to see a sentence with a comma in it and no period at the end. I would prefer to see the captions rewritten as sentences and a period used, but others may differ in their opinion on this.
I'm also in favour of detailed captions, as relying on readers to click through to the image page to find out things is not good practice, in my opinion. See Wikipedia:Captions for more details on how to write a short-but-still-detailed caption. Sometimes making the picture bigger makes a large caption less overwhelming, but then the section needs to be large enough to accomodate that larger picture. If there is something in the picture that would warrant a paragraph in the article, then my all means do this, but keep the picture close to the text. Also, for historical pictures, the origin of the pictures is sometimes important encylopedic information. Carcharoth 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to have a timeline or list of some sort within the article? The lead does list four of the projects, but the article mentions two more. It would be nice to have a reasonably comprehensive listing in one place if possible? Also, if there are other free pictures of the buildings or projects, could a Commons category be created and linked? Carcharoth 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this. I haven't seen a timeline and would have to make one up myself with original thought. As the article indicates in places, it is not always clear who designed what or how they overlapped; the timing is actually quite vague in places. It is easier to hedge around this in prose than in a line. A new category on commons is a good idea, and I'll do it next time I upload some pictures.qp10qp 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my replies there. qp10qp 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggested locations for a map would be:

Three Paris locations (maybe a close-up map with a map of France for the above three?):

Please add any more that might be useful. Failing a map, you could provide a table of geographical co-ordinates, and people can go and look at the places on Google Maps. The still-existing chateaux can be clearly seen. Carcharoth 08:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider a map but thought it would look very dull—you would have Paris and some dots around it, with Blois, Chambord, and Chenonceau a bit further down to the left. Another thing is that whereas the chateaux close to Paris were in the country, these days they are in greater Paris, even Fontainebleau. Still, a map would do no harm, I suppose, and wouldn't take long. When I build up the article on Charles IX, I am looking forward to doing a map of his progress (in fact, I'd like to do an article on that progress itself one day, because it was the last of the great French royal progresses and was spectacular—thanks of course to Catherine, who masterminded it). qp10qp 16:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel the need for a map of the Tuileries/Louvre/Pont Neuf. I haven't found one of Catherine's time, though. I would have to create an original-thought map which removed material from later maps to show what the situation might have been in Catherine's time. And the trouble is, I don't think we know, really. I suspect that more was built than we think, or else how could Catherine have held the grand ball at the Tuileries for the Poles? The only evidence we have is du Cerceau, who is well known to be unreliable, plus the parts of de l'Orme and Bullant's wings that survived to the nineteenth century, each of which fitted a different plan (de l'Orme's for a self-contained building and Bullant's for an extension towards the Seine and a putative galerie. I think it's all too fugitive for a map.qp10qp 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, I'm not sure all of our readers know that all of these places are little dots near Paris. :) That kind of visual information is useful, I think. Other maps for later articles sound good as well, but even a small, if necessarily incomplete, map of Paris and its environs would be good for this one, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 07:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Will do. qp10qp 22:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit

[edit]
  • The first paragraph seems abrupt - the sentences don't quite flow together.
No, they were rather pushed together in response to a comment above. The opening is rewritten now, but it's still rubbish. I'm hoping it will gradually get better as new wordings occur to me. qp10qp 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular, she launched a series of grand building projects. Catherine's aim as a builder was to enhance the grandeur of the Valois monarchy at all costs. - Valois comes out of the blue for the uninformed reader - the name needs to be attached to the people mentioned somehow
Changed to just "monarchy". qp10qp 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She grew up as an orphan in Florence and Rome under the wing of the Medici popes, Leo X and Clement VII. - Perhaps "orphan" is a bit too poetic?
I dunno, since I've been reading that Mary Shelley, I don't know what's come over me. The word "orphan" cut in two places.qp10qp 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Architecture was Catherine's favourite art form. She supervised each project personally.[1] The architects of the day wrote books on the subject knowing that she would read them. The poet Ronsard accused her of preferring masons to poets.[2] Catherine spent colossal sums on the building and embellishment of palaces. - Too many small, punctuated sentences in a row (and the first one strikes me as simplistic somehow).
I think I spotted that myself and dropped the Ronsard line to notes even before I read this comment. The sentences are a bit longer now, and one of them may even have turned into too much of a whopper. I want to keep the point about architecture being her favourite art form, because it partly justifies this article. There's much less information about Catherine and the other arts; without the valve of this article, the planned article on Catherine and the arts would have to be terribly unbalanced in favour of architecture. qp10qp 02:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there is a more elegant way to say "favourite art form"? It sounds like "favourite ice cream flavour", if you know what I mean. Too lowly for something so grandiose as architecture. Awadewit | talk 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've dropped that. Her enthusiasm for architecture in any case comes over well enough.qp10qp 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This meeting of Italian mannerism and French patronage bred an original style, later known as the first school of Fontainebleau. - Could you offer a sentence or two describing the style? (Also, I noticed that sometimes "mannerism" is capitalized in the article and sometimes it isn't. I think it should be, since it is a specific style, right?)
All capitalised now, I think.qp10qp 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence or two describing the school of Fontainebleau is a tall order, so I've just added the physical aspect, which I believe is fairly recognisable. Art criticism, though, seems to implode on contact with Mannerism and the school of Fontainebleau, so no two people define it the same way.qp10qp 02:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have run into that problem with Mannerism myself and one of my art history professors even mentioned it as one of interesting facts about the "style". Can you just pick a definition from a well-respect art historian, like Gombrich? Awadewit | talk 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the plastic distinctiveness is now shown. Of course, though the school is Mannerist, it is a sufficiently idiosyncratic offshoot not to be covered by definitions of Mannerism in themselves. If I find another good definition, I'll add it. (I'm finding this fascinating, by the way, having until very recently found Mannerism and all its offshoots aberrational and inferior. Now I'm starting to understand—just. Not so much a lightbulb being switched on as a series of candles being lit in a cathedral of tiny mirrors.) qp10qp 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about adding a few sentences at the beginning of the "Valois Chapel" section to prepare the reader for the three subsections and unify the whole section?
Done.qp10qp 20:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The circular design allowed the royal tomb to be viewed in the round. This solved the problems faced by the Giusti brothers and Philibert de l'Orme, who had built previous royal tombs - What problems?
I've added an explanation, based on Blunt's analysis. The older tombs were only designed to be viewed front on or side on, apparently, which meant that the design did not work when seen from intermediate angles.qp10qp 17:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the monuments built for the chapel have survived. - Since this is a new section, remind the reader which chapel we are talking about.
Done. Thanks: I'm blind to this sort of thing. 17:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • His style has been interpreted as a reflection of a society torn by religious conflict and civil war. - The reader will need a bit of an explanation about the historical events - a sentence or two with wikilinks, I think would be sufficient.
I've added a wikilink and a clearer reference to the French Wars of Religion, but I am reluctant to further unbalance what is intended as an interpretive rather than a documentary paragraph. I will see about adding something about the civil wars (which are horribly difficult to summarise) to the lead.qp10qp 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something about the civil war to the lead. But the sources do not actually elaborate on the point that Pilon's style reflected a society torn by war, etc., so I must resist souping up the synthesis. However, it seems to be a commonplace (the point is also made about other artists, for example the painters Caron and Cousin, and I think there's something in it). There's surprisingly little analysis available, at least in English, on Pilon. Amazon produces no books in English with his name in the title, and only two obscure French ones! I've a feeling that Blunt and Zerner, whom I have, are as good as it gets. (I think I'm outawadewiting Awadewit in the obscurity of my subject here!) qp10qp
I don't know if these two rather obscure sources would help at all or if you would be able to get them, but they are what my library has:
  • Germain Pilon et les sculpteurs français de la Renaissance : actes du colloque organisé au musée du Louvre par le service culturel les 26 et 27 octobre 1990 / sous la direction de Geneviève Bresc-Bautier
  • Germain Pilon, par Jean Babelon ... biographie et catalogue critiques, l'oeuvre complète de l'artiste reproduite en quatre-vingt-deux héliogravures
Sometimes these kinds of things have little bits that are helpful. Awadewit | talk 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Yes that first one is one of the two on Amazon, not that they're available. The Babelon is a 1927 book that I think is taken into account by Zerner and Blunt. Of course, it may have a vivid phrase or two of its own. I'm pretty confident that I've read all the best sources, though, since I took Knecht's bibliographical essay as my guide. I remember you saying that eighteenth-century children's literature was a scholarly black hole, and I'm sure French art of the second half of the sixteenth century offers similar opportunities for scholars. Knecht says that Blunt is still the standard work, which considering he wrote in 1957 seems to me amazing. It's clear to me that the subject is full of black holes and grey areas and, I suspect, flat-out misinterpretations.qp10qp 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Marshal Tavannes, she planned the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in the Tuileries gardens, where she would not be overheard. - Explain in a phrase or two what the massacre was.
Done. qp10qp 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another of Catherine's projects was the palace of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, to the south-east of Paris. - Beginning an entire section with "another" is weak, I think.
Fixed. qp10qp 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about writing an "Overview" section? Is there a reason for the ordering of the sections, for example? Right now, they seem like a list. It would be nice if they flowed into each other better. An overview might guide the reader a bit better through the article.
It's difficult to write an overview because I can't find many general statements about her architectural projects, other than that they were expensive and largely haven't survived. (I would love to essay an original-thought analysis, though, because one reason I became so fascinated with these projects was the insight I think they give into Catherine's whole strange, difficult-to-grasp career. The relatively random and opportunistic approach, the abandonings and switches of attention, the reversals of policy, the grandiosity, the acting from hope rather than realism, the lack of foresight—all these are deeply typical of her political career too. But no one makes this point, so shucks!)
Despite the lack of sources to help with an overview, the article does have a carefully thought-out scheme. It starts with influences, and the last influence it mentions is that of the death of Catherine's husband. For that reason, the article goes straight to the tomb and chapel in Henry's honour: in that section it moves from the greater design (architecture) via the tomb-work to the particular (statues). I couldn't find much out about Montceaux, but since Catherine had the grotto built for Henry there, I put that next. As that work was done by de l'Orme, I moved on in the next section to de l'Orme's major work for Catherine, the Tuileries, begun shortly after Henry's death. The story this section tells leads the reader from de l'Orme to Bullant, who took over and changed the style. It was natural then to move on to the Hôtel de la Reine, Bullant's own great project. I can't find much about Saint-Maur, but since there is a theory that this was worked on by Bullant at the end of his life, I added it next. That section also gave an opportunity to start to focus on du Cerceau, since he brought out his two famous albums of plans in 1576 and 1579. His drawings then lead us on to Chenonceau, another Bullant project but known through du Cerceau's drawings. Since so much at Chenonceau was to do with gardens, this last main section opens the article out, I feel, at the end of a sequence of main projects: chapel, unfinished palace, finished palace, palace and gardens. Despite the overlaps, this more or less represents a chronological progression, since Chenonceau was the last project that Catherine began. qp10qp 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking a map might be nice, too, showing where all of these different places are (might I recommend User:Kmusser).
See my comments to Carcharoth higher up. I'm not keen, but I intend to do a map for the Catherine article, and that will show these places, so I could add the same map here then.qp10qp 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the images bleed into the next section on my screen - I think it looks tidier when they don't do that. It is also easier to tell what section of the article they are illustrating. You might think about repositioning some of them. Awadewit | talk 07:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's depressing, because I aligned the images with the text and made sure they were on the correct side of the section divisions. Needless to say it all looks perfect to me. I've just tried putting "clear" templates in, but they wrecked things, so I don't know what to do. I'll maybe ask Scartol or Carch (though they didn't mention this). 19:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you do this late at night, carrying a candelabra? qp10qp 22:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these very useful and perceptive comments. I'm going to have to get to them in a few days, because I am locked into John Knox copyediting and reviewing at the moment (what did you get me into there!). I need to stick at that or I'll never get it done. Knox has the potential for an FA, though, so it's worth it. I'll drop you a line when I address your points. qp10qp 14:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting there, definitely.qp10qp 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by D. Recorder

[edit]

First off I'd like to say that this is a very interesting article, is well written and illustrated, and I would support it at FAC. As a subpage of Catherine de Medici, there is a slight essay aspect that seems inescapable for subpages, yet, due to the fact that it is of high quality and overall interest I'm looking past that. As this page attests, the Medicis were prodigious art and architecture patrons [1] shows and links to some of their villas. One project that springs to mind that I couldn't find in this article that might be worth noting, is the Medici Chapel. I'm wondering if there may be some relationship worth noting in the influences or in the statuary of Valois section. There is mention of the Valois chapel's debt to Michelangelo in the figures, but I'm really seeing the composition of the two reclining figures divided by an elevated central one owing to the figures of the New Sacristy[2] of the IMedici chapel, in the tomb of Catherine's father Lorenzo, also sculpted by Michelangelo. I know it is blurry but this picture shows the composition,[3], compare with [4] Here is an example that says that Valois was an imitation of her family's chapel in Florence.[5] However, most important for this article is clearly defining and describing Catherine's role in the buildings and projects that she helped create, much more so than hypotheses about influences, which may be interesting, but the details of her commissioning of projects are paramount to this article. D. Recorder 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as an essay aspect is concerned, I'm not aware of arguing anything on my own account; as you know, sources for architecture, and particularly for sculpture, contain arguments and aesthetic interpretations, so I feel that it's OK to sample these so long as they are well referenced. I've deliberately omitted the more excessive theories of Henri Zerner and Jean-Pierre Babelon, though, which are somewhat too arty farty to be encyclopedic.
Even though I built up this article after researching for the arts section of the Catherine de' Medici article, I don't regard it as a sub-article. I regard it as a main article, with a summary (not written yet) in the other article. The title may seem a bit clumsy or subtitly, but this results from the uniqueness of Wikipedia, in my opinion, where articles overlap and partake of each other on separate pages. The more Wikipedia grows, the more pages like this there must be. qp10qp 21:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any specific mention of influences from the Medici Chapel, but, of course, Primaticcio, who designed the Valois Chapel, was Italian and must surely have been aware of such precedents. Great spot about the sacristy!!!!! It really is hard to believe that these statues weren't an influence, given that they relate to her father. We know that Catherine tried to commission Michelangelo to sculpt an equestrian statue of Henry II after the latter's death. She must have known him in Florence, too, where he helped with siege defences against the empire when she was a girl. Anyway, I've added that Michelangelo designed the tomb and statues for Catherine's father; I don't think I need a source for that, since the tomb is, in effect, the source, and it's a factual statement rather than a value judgement (infuriatingly, I couldn't bring up any extracts in your link to the Batiffol book). qp10qp 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following the links, I was intrigued to come across pictures of the Medici villa at Poggio a Caiano, because Catherine often stayed there as a girl (she took refuge there when rebels took over Florence, and they came and removed her from the villa and stuck her in a convent for three years). I can see elements in the design that remind me of de l'Orme's mixture of classical and Renaissance styles. I don't know of any documentation of the specific connection, though, of the sort we have for the influence of the Pitti Palace and the Uffizi. It's fascinating to see what that villa looked like. For some reason, it never occurred to me to look it up.qp10qp
On the general point about Catherine's commissioning, I have included what information I can find. For example there are the quotes from de l'Orme, both in the text and the notes. He is valuable in telling us about her involvement in his schemes, but we can only piece together much of her commissioning and changes of plans. qp10qp 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From §Montceaux:

  • For this commission, Philibert de l'Orme built her a "grotto". - Why is grotto in quotes?
Fixed. qp10qp 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From §Chenonceau:

  • In return, she gave Diane the less lovely chateau of Chaumont.[59] "less lovely" sounds like pov, like an aesthetic judgement. If it was Catherine's pov then make that clear.
This was from a source. Another book says "less delightful", another says "less desirable". I am considering cutting it, in view of what you say, but I hesitate because the lack of a value judgement at this point may make the reader wonder why this was a bad thing for Diane. I don't think we have any record of the two women's opinions, but clearly they both preferred Chenonceau to Chaumont. qp10qp 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've come to a decision and changed it to "less prized". qp10qp 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reading, I noticed two prose details that I thought might need emending. D. Recorder 22:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these comments. Very much appreciated. I will be addressing them, along with those of other reviewers, in a few days, when I should have the time. qp10qp 05:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scartol

[edit]

Smashing work as always. I like reviewing articles like this because I don't have to think too much about deconstructing the larger structure. Some idle comments:

  • A philosophical question: What, in your mind, are the risks of referring to her as a "builder"? I usually associate that term with the people who actually do the grunt work. (How many bricks did Jefferson himself lay into Monticello?) Obviously a much larger question than what appears here, but I'm interested to know your thoughts.
I've cut down the use of this form now: Francis is still called a compulsive builder once, and the word "build" is still used twice in connection to Catherine. It's a normal enough usage, I think, which appears often in the sources. On the philosophical question, the masons, of course, do the building (not even the architects), so I suppose this is a form of shorthand. Ronsard says "The queen must cease building", but he throws in a jibe at the masons and stone carvers as well. qp10qp 18:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: Is it incongruous (or perhaps even subconsciously discriminatory) to refer to the male architects as "du Cerceau" and "de l'Orme", while referring to de Medici as "Catherine"? This is not a rhetorical question; I'm curious to have your take on it.
It's just the way it's done. We do the same with male monarchs: "Francis instructed de l'Orme to..." qp10qp 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, I realized that about an hour after I posted the comment. My bad. – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Francis set his daughter-in-law an example of magnificence… I know this is technically appropriate, but it sure makes me stumble as a reader. Is there some more "just folks" way to put it?
Changed to "an example of kingship and artistic patronage that she never forgot". qp10qp 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I actually meant the first part. How about "Francis set an example for his daughter-in-law…"? – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

  • Maybe a word of nationality and/or profession to situate Jean-Pierre Babelon?
Done. qp10qp 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though she kept in touch with her native Florence, her taste matured at the court of Francis I. Which was where? Also, Francis I links to a disambig.
Geographicalisationed and fixed. qp10qp 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She later copied Francis' policy of setting the grandeur of the dynasty in stone, whatever the cost. I'd love a concrete example here. (That's a pun too! Get it? Concrete? Har!)
Checking my three source pages for the point that Francis' building policy influenced Catherine's, I find that none of them give a concrete example at this point. I assume that he influenced all her projects and so I've decided not to add one particular example here. qp10qp 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the Louvre, he began extension works that continued throughout Catherine's lifetime. This sort of makes it sound like he worked specifically during her lifetime for some reason. Is this the case? If not, probably best to clarify.
Dropped part of this to a note. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He added a wing to the old… This begins three sentences which all begin the same way, without transition words – stylistically vivid, but will probably raise hackles at FAC. (I'm curious to know if this is intentional, or the result of the piecemeal origins of the article?)
I've mixed this up a bit. It was intentional: I suppose I like simple declarative sentences, to use a Hemingwayism. The piecemeal build-up of the article is no excuse for anything, as I've revised the prose several times; so mea culpa. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • …and took as her emblem a broken lance. I'd much prefer: "took a broken lance as her emblem." Feels more natural to me.
I did this to avoid chance of a miscue. qp10qp 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No interpretation on that, eh? I saw a Freudian reading a mile away. :) Awadewit | talk 23:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the blockquote at the end of this section be in a slightly smaller type?
Well, it is smaller in my font. I don't know if someone has changed it since you pointed this out.qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Windows (at least the setup I have at school) renders blockquotes strangely. I must have been reading this at school. Sorry for the confusion. Mea culpa on me this time. – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valois Chapel

  • …Catherine decided to add a new chapel to the Basilica of Saint Denis… Oops! Should I have left basilica uncapitalized?
I wouldn't call it an "oops" because a lot of thought has been wasted on these decisions. I was struck by the fact that in French this is "Basilique Saint Denis", without the "de", and so I wondered if the whole thing has to count as a name. But the best way round this is probably just to call it "Saint Denis", which I might do. Actually, this is a move I'm considering for the chateaux, too. Just "Chambord", or whatever. qp10qp 06:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a few c words and made all b words lowercase, since I noticed that it is done like that in Zerner, whose publisher is French. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems like a fair approach. – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if this note would be better represented with the title and page # first?
Done. Actually, I've now got a copy of the English translation of Zerner and was expecting to convert these Knecht quotes of Zerner into direct ones, but, blow me, I can't find them or anything like them in the translated edition, so I am sticking to Knecht's translation of the original French. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, ever since I made that comment, I've been finding footnotes in books which follow the opposite model (comments first, page # last). Yeesh! Pick a style, ivory tower! – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catherine is sculpted in a rounded style, while Henry is posed strikingly, with his head thrown back. This sentence feels incongruent – Catherine's described in terms of the roundness of the style, while Henry is described vis a vis his positioning. Maybe I just don't follow what's being said. (I can be dense sometimes.)
Yes, that incongruence is in the source; I'll find a better wording. qp10qp 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the first part to say that Catherine is sculpted as if asleep (Zerner), which matches better with the second half, I think. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primaticcio's decorations at Fontainebleau seems to have influenced Pilon more than earlier French sculpture. Unclear: His decorations influenced Pilon more than earlier French sculpture did, or His decorations influenced Pilon more than they influenced earlier French sculpture?
Tweaked this and brought in the Goujon point after a semicolon, to make the sense sharper. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuileries

  • After the death of Henry II, Catherine abandoned the palace of the Tournelles, where Henry had lain after a lance fatally pierced his eye and brain in a joust. Could not the two parts of this sentence about Henry be combined?
I don't think so. I don't mind restating a subject where it is necessary. The only way to simplify here, I think, would be to split the sentence into two sentences rather than conflating. But this would involve restatement too. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your judgment on it. – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This arrogant genius had been sacked as surintendant… Isn't this POV? And I think it would be less awkward in any case to say: "An arrogant genius, he had been sacked…" And if we're not using château, then how is surintendant allowed? =)
I knew that if I just said he was sacked, someone might asked why; but I don't think this is known. A source said that he was arrogant and upset people, which is why I added it. I am not of the school that believes words like this this (or "lovely") are POV—not if they can be justified by the sources (why should Wikipedia be different from scholarly sources in its use of affective language?). But I might add quotes to the notes for these two, then, to show that I wasn't just getting carried away myself.qp10qp 06:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a note calling him "haughty" to the one calling him "arrogant". I think that nails the "arrogant" home and I'll be happy to argue the point. I've read some of his writings and, to lapse into original thought for a moment, I'd say that "arrogant" is an understatement. He visits Rome, for example, and goes round pointing out how the great classical and Renaissance architects might have done a better job if only they had understood architecture properly. Like him. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think making the distinction somehow is all that's called for. I agree that we're right to use affective language, but I also know there are some very strict NPOVers out there who bristle if it isn't fascistically demarcated. (Hey, I made up a word.) – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously failed in my explanation at the top of the article's talk page that even if I used "château", it would be as a naturalised English word. "Surintendant" is a French word, so it is not comparable. Nothing wrong with using French words, and both "surintendant" (French) and "château" (English) are used alongside each other in the sources. You see why it would be unwise for me to re-add the circumflex; because then people would equate "château" with "surintendant", on the grounds that they were both French words. And the italicising would set in. I am going to adopt Awadewit's suggestion about putting a note on the edit page.
But there is an easy way round this particular word, because I have also seen "surintendant" given as "chief architect", so I shall use that. Translating it as "superindendent", by the way, is not an option for me, partly because I have not seen this done and partly because in England it's the name of a police rank, which would add an unwanted nuance (but it gives me the idea for a mystery series about a sixteenth-century architectural French detective. Maybe instead of being sacked, de l'Orme was sent undercover by Catherine de' Med to find out who was sabotaging all her building projects and solve the many assassination mysteries of the French wars of religion. qp10qp 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, yeah. I do think "chief architect" would work better. The distinction in this paragraph above does make sense, but I think the average reader would still get thrown to see the one and not the other. – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have now found "superintendent" used, so I'm going for that. And, give the cat another goldfish, I've put the chapeaux back on the châteaux into the bargain. qp10qp 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like my asinine peevishness needs encouragement. – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you stopped short of jejunosity. qp10qp 23:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He notes, however, that in this case he added… the "he"s are getting confusing. Do they all refer to de l'Orme?
Added another marker.qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added another Bullant link, since it had been a while.
  • Only a part of de l’Orme’s scheme was ever built. This consisted of the lower section of a central pavilion, containing an oval staircase, and a wing on either side. I'd enjoy seeing these combined with a colon and the removal of "This consisted of".
Good call. Done. qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • De l'Orme's original plans do not survive. "Have not survived"?
Done. qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well as flowerbeds, they included… This is totally WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but this construction has always irked me. Maybe: "In addition to flowerbeds…"?
I've cut flowerbeds. I mean, what gardens wouldn't have flowerbeds (Well, Zen gardens, I admit. And octopuses' gardens, maybe)?
Water garden? (I admit, I went looking.) – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the remaining four sections this evening. (If all goes to plan.) – Scartol · Talk 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review and comments much appreciated. I'll get to all the stuff on this page in a few days, when I'll have the time. I've also got to finish copyediting and reviewing John Knox first (the things that Awadewit gets us into!). qp10qp 05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Maur

  • The house was to stay single-storeyed… This may be technically correct, but it sure looks awkward. How about: "The house was to remain as one story…"?
Done.qp10qp 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hôtel de la Reine

  • I think without a wikilink (I assume there's no page on it) we need a touch of explanation of what the Bourse de Commerce is?
That's a bit tricky, because I haven't any good sources. I've made a red link for the time being and might translate the French wikipedia article sometime. qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The staircase inside leads to a platform that holds three persons… Capable of holding three persons, or holding three statues or figures? Maybe it's just me, but given the earlier descriptions of molded person-figures, this might need clarification.
Changed to "can hold". qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

  • Are those en dashes after sixteenth and seventeenth? WP:MOS doesn't have anything on it, but I was under the impression that this is done with hyphens.
Good spot. Can't even remember doing that. Will sort anon. qp10qp 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. qp10qp 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this, and for calling me in; I enjoyed reading it! – Scartol · Talk 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)#[reply]

Some highly useful points and spots. Thanks for taking the trouble. Much appreciated. qp10qp 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume a lack of response from me to your replies above indicate they look good from here. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Catherine_de%27_Medici%27s_building_projects/archive1&oldid=1078818369"