# Talk:Palais Rohan, Strasbourg

Are we sure about this? I know all the archbishops were Rohans between the building of the current palace and the Revolution, but it replaced an earlier bishop's palace on the same site, and was no doubt built with the revenues of the see. Wouldn't it have belonged to the archdiocese in the normal way? I notice the 18th-century print describes it as the "palais episcopal".  Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You are right, I will check the sources and address this soon. Thank you! --Edelseider (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I checked the sources (especially the precious Etienne Martin book) and it is actually quite complicated. Basically, Louis XIV of France forced the Catholic church of Alsace to give over its goods to the clerical nobility, in return for prestige and grand embellishments. This was a slow but inexorable process, starting in 1681. So the House of Rohan did own the palace because the see was made a private property. In 1789, the palace was confiscated both because it belonged to the church and because it belonged to "emigrants" (i. e. the Rohans). I'll try to formulate it in the article. --Edelseider (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done, as this difference between revisions will show. The GA review can start! (*rubs hands*). All the best, Edelseider (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks certainly better. To me the most striking aspect of the design is the rather cunning way in which (as revealed nicely by the Photo from above) the river facade and courtyard facade, both with enlarged centre-blocks, are in fact not at all aligned, which I imagine is hardly apparent from any external view at ground-level. Some sources must mention this. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You are right, I didn't notice that - looking to much at the details, not enough at the basic structure, I suppose. I will find a source. Any other requests? All the best, Edelseider (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done, see here. --Edelseider (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have just completed a copy-edit of the article. I have just two concerns:
1) I came across only one unclear sentence that I don't know how to fix. Since I don't know who is preparing to submit the article to FAC, I will post my comment here. The third paragraph in Palais Rohan (Strasbourg)#Apartments begins:

Many of the original furnishings were sold in the wake of the French Revolution. Some works of art, including the overdoors from the Salle des évêques, part of the municipal collections, were destroyed with the museum situated in the Aubette when the Prussian Army shelled the city during the Siege of Strasbourg in 1870.
It is the second sentence that I find to be unclear, particularly the second half of the sentence:

...were destroyed with the museum situated in the Aubette when the Prussian Army shelled the city during the Siege of Strasbourg in 1870.
and especially "were destroyed with the museum situated in the Aubette".
(a) Unless I missed it, the Aubette has not been mentioned before now, so the reader won't know what or when this was;
(b) Because of the phrasing "were destroyed with the museum", it is not clear whether, in addition to "some works of art, including the overdoors...", the entire building of the museum was destroyed, or whether "some works of art..." were destroyed when the museum was situated [housed] in the Aubette.  
If someone could clarify this, it would be good. You can either re-word it yourself, or explain it to me and I'll attempt a re-wording.
2) In the second paragraph in Palais Rohan (Strasbourg)#Structure, the word "bulk" is used twice: "the main residential bulk" and "the residential bulk". The word is used in a way that is not the usual usage, for example: "The bulk of the work has been completed", where "bulk" means the majority, the greater part. Here is a link to the entry for "bulk" in the on-line Merriam Webster dictionary: [1]. I don't see a definition for the way the word is used here, and I don't know if this is a specialized word from the field of architecture. I wonder if either another word could be used instead of "bulk" (such as "area", "section", or "wing") or a link to an article or definition could be supplied.  – Corinne (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Corinne:, well, thank you for your remarks. The Aubette is the building where the municipal museum of art was located until 1870. When the Aubette was shelled by Prussian artillery, it burned down with all its content, sadly. This is when the entire arts collections of the city of Strasbourg were destroyed. I think this is stated in more detail in the article about the Musée des beaux-arts, which is linked here (several times).
About the word "bulk", I think, both the definitions the main or greater part and an organized structure especially when viewed primarily as a mass of material apply. A building is an organized structure, there is no doubt about that. And here, the residential part of the building is indeed the the main or greater part of the organized structure of the southern façade.
If this is too fussy or unclear, please do replace these expression with others, more intelligible ones.--Edelseider (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The article failed its FAC, but it was much expanded and edited in the process since it became a GA, and actually got some support: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palais Rohan, Strasbourg/archive1. It most probably fulfils all the criteria to be promoted A-Class. Thank you in advance to all future reviewers! --Edelseider (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Before the Palais Rohan article is judged for its quality, it might be held up as an example of how much clean-up and copyediting work a single sloppy, contentious, self-promoting editor with an aversion to edit summaries can generate for the Wikipedia community. Eric talk 01:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Is that a personal attack? Shall I report you for this? By the tone of your comment, I think that you are a bitter person. Maybe your own life is punishment enough. --Edelseider (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The article failed its FAC, but it was much expanded and edited in the process since it became a GA, and actually got some support: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palais Rohan, Strasbourg/archive1. It most probably fulfils all the criteria to be promoted A-Class. Thank you in advance to all future reviewers! --Edelseider (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


### Comments by Ɱ
Just like if you wanted to take this to FAC, you'd have to reply to these valid concerns. Under A-class criteria, I have these points. I'm not doing a full review unless you want me to, but I saw some curious things here.

Wikilink "prelate", never heard this term
I'm surprised you wikilink common terms like art gallery, exhibition, statues, taxes, vases, paintings, library, columns, copper, staircase, balconies, arches, busts, stables, trophies, tapestries, and porcelain. (MOS:OVERLINK)
I've never seen File:Strassburg 5917.jpg described as Empire style. Two houses I've seen with this style of room are the Vanderbilt Mansion and Woodlea, neither of which use that terminology in their sources. Do you have reliable sources? Some say it's in the style of a house of mirrors (implying like Versailles'), but I'm making a separate commonscat just for "gold rooms".
I would remove the archi-wiki link per WP:ELNO. And I'm doubtful you should use it for citations, it doesn't appear to be a WP:Reliable source.
Best, ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 20:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Term Prelate is a Roman Catholic higher clergy term in frequent use.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Well I knew that once I read its article, but I can fully assure you most normal people (i.e. not wikinerds like us), and especially non-Christian people, will not have heard of this term. In any case, wikilink when in doubt. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)