# Talk:Pavillon de Flore

I have placed the review on hold for the following reasons:
*The prose was confusing in parts, so I have done some copyediting. Please check that my changes were accurate. Everything looks good. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"The structure owes its name to a sculpture along the south face called Flore (English: Flora), created by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux and commissioned by Napoleon III." - this needs to be mentioned in the main text, as well as the lead. It also contradicts this: "King Louis XIV renamed the structure the Pavillon de Flore"
Good catch (truly, that required a bit of background work!) Carpeaux's work was meant to evoke the name of the structure. Thus, the name existed before Carpeaux added his bit. His work was indeed commissioned by Nap III, but the Pavillon de Flore already had the name Pavillon de Flore. Ok, fixing...........Lazulilasher (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)...and fixed Y. I moved the Carpeaux reference to the history section, where I felt it fit better in the context of the larger discussion surrounding Lefuel's remodeling. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
*The article states the Grande Galerie wasn't completed, yet Louvre#Construction and architecture states it was. Which is correct?

It was completed. Fixing now and will update with a summary here when complete....Lazulilasher (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Okey Dokey, so the Grande Galerie (alternatively called the Galerie du bord de l'eau (gallery next to the water) and the Pavillon de Flore were both authorized by Henry IV to link the two palaces (interestingly this was also the largest edifice of its kind at that time). Anyway, it's fixed and ref'd. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"The Pavillon de Flore served to aesthetically offset the fact that the Palais du Louvre, with its pyramid, was not aligned on the same axis as the Place de la Concorde, Champs-Élysées and Arc de Triomphe." - did these buildings exist when the Pavillon de Flore was built? Also, according to the map, the pyramid and Arc de Triomphe seem quite well aligned.
Y Ya, they actually aren't aligned. I created a custom Google map here which demonstrates it (it is much more clear if you click on 'Satellite View'). Anyway, no, the other structures (except the Louvre/Tuileries) did not exist. The Palais de Tuileries helped offset the fact that the Louvre and the rest of the Champs-Elysees were on two different axes.  Once Tuileries was burnt down, this became more clear (although I never noticed it until I read about it, the scale of the structures in that area of Paris help to obscure this slight aesthetic aberration).  Regardless, the text did not make this clear. So, I have clarified it. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I know that it may look like I'm bordering on OR here, so I am working on getting that fact cited. I should be able to find a ref soon. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Ok, reference added. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Once the accuracy of the article is established, there may be further improvements needed. Epbr123 (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for the review. I am currently working on your requests and will let you know when they are met. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
On another topic, it would be totally awesome if we could find a free use image of Carpeaux' work on the Pavillon de Flore...I've looked through all of my photos and can't find one. The only photo I've found is copyrighted by the Louvre :( Lazulilasher (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Frania W. transfered from Lazulilasher's talk page: "I read the article, saw the changes you made & added a few of my own. Will return to it with more info on historical "personnages" who passed thru it. There is also work to do in the Footnotes, such as following certain rules RE bibliography, going something like : last name of author, first name, title of book, page of reference, publisher, city where published, year. Will add this comment on PdF talk page. Frania W." Frania W. (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Yep. You were right--all of the footnotes were not in the same format--they've all (I think) been changed now to fit inline with the cite templates. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Lazulilasher:  I looked at the footnotes after you reviewed them. RE the books of reference, the page number is there, but not preceded by p. , so it is not clear that it is the page number. Not knowing how to work with templated footnotes, I cannot fix it - I tried one & the whole thing would have been lost, so I decided to leave it alone. Frania W. (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frania, we can actually just type :pp in the pages argument of the {{Cite}} template. I'll do that now and post one here for you as an example. It took me forever to finally figure out how all of the {{cite book}}, {{ref}}, and <ref> templates worked, so no worries there :)  Lazulilasher (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Y ok, the footnotes now clearly mark the page numbers. Anyway, here's an example of the tag for future reference:.<ref>{{cite book|author=Daniel Coit Gilman|coauthors=Harry Thurston
Peck, Frank Moore Colby|title=The New International Encyclopaedia|publisher=Dodd, Mead and company|pages=p 622|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=OVArAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA525&lpg=PA525&dq=pavillon+de+flore+structure+building+history&source=web&ots=1hKJdT4awP&sig=_jjsjh6d1koIVhe4_oIW-HYb-os#PPA622,M1}}</ref> Lazulilasher (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


### GA pass
I now feel the article is at Good Article level and passed the review. Well done for the improvements made. Epbr123 (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher: RE the copyright for the photograph of the "haut relief" by Carpeaux on the façade of PdF, please check the following: http://www.insecula.com/root/conditions.html. It looks like we have to look somewhere else, unless you want to go & take the picture yourself as I, unfortunately, am not in Paris right now to do it. Frania W. (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is quite unfortunate that I, as well, am not in Paris. I was just there a few months ago and at that point, I wasn't even aware that you could actually edit wikipedia. If I'd known I would have taken many photos. Oh well. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher:  I found a photograph of the Flore haut-relief.  
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:hoa6KfLv8EIJ:www.fond-ecran-image.com/photo-gratuite-facade.php+photos+haut+relief+fa%C3%A7ade+Pavillon+de+Flore&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
When you get to the site, scroll down to the 12th photograph.  It is not as nice as the one on "insecula" as it does not show as much of the façade, but it is better than nothing.  We also may have to leave a comment on the site & tell whoever is in charge of the use we plan of their photograph.  Frania W. (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Voie triomphale" in Paris is the axis beginning at the center of the now gone Palais des Tuileries & passing through the center alley of the Jardin des Tuileries, the middle of the Place de la Concorde (Obélisque de Luxor), the Champs Elysées, Arc de Triomphe, and continuing through the Avenue de la Grande Armée.  When the Palais des Tuileries was burned down, the axis fell upon the Louvre, unfortunately, not at its center. So the beginning of the axis became  the equestrian statue of Louis XIV in the Cour Carrée of the Louvre. In July 1989, François Mitterrand inaugurated The Grande Arche de la Défense, built at the end of the Avenue de la Grande Armée to commemorate the bicentennial of the French Revolution.  Instead of respecting the course of the “Voie triomphale”, the Grande Arche aimed at the center of the Louvre, throwing the axis off some 6.33°.  Should the Tuileries palace be rebuilt, its center will again be the starting point of the "Voie triomphale"; however, the Grande Arche de La Défense will always be 6.33° off, unless the Ministère de la Culture decide to have it torn down and rebuilt within the axis.  Which means that, from Place de la Concorde, it would not be seen because hidden by the Arc de Triomphe.  Frania W. (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frania, great info....I love the accurate measurements. Do you happen to have the source? If so, then I think the 6.33 part would be great in this article. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Will look it up.
Also: RE the burning of the Tuileries:  I found some great pictures that may interest you for either PdF article or one you may decide to do on the Tuileries, since the two subjects are closely related.  No time right now to forward the info. Frania W. (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
RE Louvre & Grande Arche de La Défense being 6.33° off Voie triomphale axis:  I found one source: http://www.aquadesign.be/news/article-3397.php
but am looking for more dependable one.  Frania W. (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Porte des Lions. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15#Porte des Lions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)