Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Paris/archive1

History of Paris

What would you suggest is missing? Does it have FAC potential?

To answer my own question: I think it badly needs references, and a few of the statements (on Marie-Antoinette, or on behaviour during WW2) seem more like opinion than sure facts. David.Monniaux 19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yes it has potential, and the biggest job to get it ready will be finding sources to verify things that look a bit shaky. The article doesn't mention the Paris Olympics at all (1900 and 1924), which are a pretty historic events for the cities that hold them. The lead should also be expanded from the sentence it is now into two to three paragraphs that summarise the article.--nixie 05:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's very selective. Very, VERY selective. Seriously. It has a great number of holes the size of Notre Dame. For instance, it doesn't mention the great flood of 1647, which took place during the Fronde. Not once does it mention the Grand-Opera tradition. Garnier's Opera is nowhere to be found. It zeroes in on the Eiffel Tower in connection with the Belle Epoque, even though the said epoch is associated with the phenomenon known as "Paris, 1900" and is symbolized, apart from the Champs Elysee, by the Sacre Couere Cathedral. There is no mention of the nineteenth century literary movements; no theatre, no Dumas (either one). It says something about the first Revolution, but it does not mention, in connection to it, that it triggered the rapid switch in, not just Paris, but world, architecture - from Baroque to Classicism. Housmann is mentioned. That's a blessing. However, he did not "demolish much of the old city." That's just plain silly. He very carefully selected buildings to be eliminated to make way for his Boulevards. Once in a while, you see in Paris a building, on a boulevard, whose facade does not parallel the sidewalk. That means that Housmann looked very carefully at it, liked the building a whole lot, and decided to spare it. The secret plans listing the buildings scheduled for demolition were sold to private citizens, who would then buy them from the owners for a regular price and, come time for the building to be razed, would re-sell it to the Government for a hell of a lot of money. There is a novel about this by none other than Zola. A circus is just that - a circus. No need to use the word when all you want to say is "plaza" or "roundabout." How about some extensive mention of the Metro? Highly unsatisfactory. Work on it.-- Impressionist 6 October 2005

• I agree that the article needs sources and that it should pay a little more attention to architectural history, but I disagree that an encyclopedia article on the history of a city needs to mention Olympic Games from the early 20th century (when they were much less of an extravaganza than today). I also disagree that an encyclopedia article on the history of a city (as opposed, perhaps, to a full-length book) needs to cover the city's literary figures, especially in the case of Paris, where covering the city's literary history would essentially require a history of French literature. I think it would suffice to state that the city played a central role in French literary history, with a link to the article on that subject. Marco polo 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)