Talk:Louvre#GA review

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)

: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)

::{{re|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)

:::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)

::::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)

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)

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Louvre/1}}

:Commons is the site where the 110 million photos used in the Wikipedia sites of the various languages ​​are hosted.

I created :Commons:Category:Musée du Louvre by room name and :Commons:Category:Musée du Louvre by room number to facilitate the search of rooms: by name or by number. Indeed, until now, one could only search for a room by its number within a department of the Louvre.--Tangopaso (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)