Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine - this is an interesting article! Before we get to the prose review, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the comments and questions below, as prose may shift or be added during this first part of the review. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @Ganesha811 for such a thorough review - I've replied below. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments and changes, and just read through the article again. Unfortunately, I think there is a fundamental issue linking the problems - notability. GA is not a notability review, and I won't be nominating this for deletion, because I think it's a marginal case. But the lack of in-depth coverage of the villa in independent, secondary sources means that this content, in my opinion, would be better off as a subsection of Lagerfeld's page, a sentence on the SBM page, and maybe a couple mentions elsewhere. As a standalone article, it feels thin and I think that explains our difficulty with the comprehensive coverage and detail. Pless should be removed, but with that gone (and even with it included), there's just very little available information on the villa between 1902 and 1986. I think it might be difficult to reach GA status without finding new sources that cover that period. Let me know what you think - I hope we can get the article to GA together, but wanted to be forthright about this obstacle. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine, what are your thoughts on this? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ganesha811. I have thought deeply about your comment for the last two days. I do still think the house is notable enough for a stand alone article, but I would be pleased to see it withdrawn from the GA process. Thank you so much for your suggested improvements. I do feel there will be better archival sources in French newspapers, which unfortunately I can neither access nor interpret. Our English article is already more comprehensive than the corresponding page on French Wikipedia though. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! I'm sorry we couldn't get it there this time, but if you ever get access to better sources, feel free to renominate and ping me and I'll come take a look again! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No uncited passages.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pless 1931 is listed as a source but with no accompanying details. I've fixed the Pless source, I forgot to add it when I found it on her page. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Including material straight from the Pless diary seems to be WP:OR unless those details have been noted as being significant elsewhere. It's very much a primary source. I'd hate to strike this from the article as it is so evocative of the elite pursuits of that era. I did frame the quote as being from her diary, with all the caveats that implies. You are right though! No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	"Karl Lagerfeld was lunching at the Monte Carlo Country Club" is a borrowed phrase and should be modified to avoid copyvio. I've fixed it. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Hold for manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Its pre- and post-Lagerfeld history is a little empty. It appears to be used as a high-end rental property now - are there any sources to verify this that we can include? When did Lagerfeld stop using the villa? Kaiser's Lagerfeld biography quotes "Shoots, parties and product launches were all held at the Villa La Vigie over the space of a decade. In the end there were no opportunities left to explore and the villa had served its purpose". I've cited its rental status. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] The article feels like a collection of details, including whatever can be scraped up about the villa without regards to importance. Is the Talley photograph relevant or encyclopedic? Lagerfeld's triplex apartment nearby? Is the fact that Constance Lewis stayed at the villa in March 1909 worth including? None of these details are really worth including, but they bring colour to the article. I've deleted the Talley and Princess Caroline trivia.No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] How long did Ingram own it? Were there any owners between him and SBM? I could not find out, alas. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See comments at 3a above.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The 2020 image is not very high quality. I think the image from the hotel gives an adequate sense of the house so that we can get away with removing the 2020 image altogether. Do you agree? Alas it is not a high quality image, but it does give a greater sense of the structure and setting of the villa than the one taken from below.No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.