Talk:Biblioteca Marciana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 09:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to do this review, but ask for a bit of patience since I am usually very busy during weekdays. I will do my utmost to complete the review, which is my first GA review, within a seven-day period.

Yakikaki Thank you very much for your time and willingness to review the article.Venicescapes (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Overall, it’s a wonderful article, and I enjoyed reading it very much. I also learnt a lot from it. A lot of hard work has gone into it, and it’s already very good compared to many other articles you find on Wikipedia. It’s well on its way to formal Good article status, and already fulfills most of the criteria.

There are mainly three areas where I have some concerns and some work needs to be done. It may seem a lot, but I believe that it can be done without too much trouble. I will be as constructive as possible also on my part when considering any proposed changes, so that we together may see the article through the Good article review process with a positive outcome. The article and your hard work deserve it. Also, this is my first Good article review, so it might well be that I've missed or misinterpreted something. Let's keep an open dialogue, therefore.

Now: the first is the lead section, which isn’t really written in line with the Manual of Style guidelines on lead sections. The way it’s written now is in a way that you often find on Wikipedia: it briefly describes the subject, and provides quotations as to why the library is one of the more interesting and important ones in the world. However, according to MOS:LEAD, the lead section “should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points”. So I would encourage a re-phrasing of the lead section. The whole section beginning with “The original building, prominently located…” and ending at “…making it a comprehensive monument to Venetian Mannerism.” could for example be moved to a new paragraph somewhere in the architecture section, under the heading “Appraisal” or some such. The lead should then summarise the appraisal, as well as the content of the other sections. I encourage you to peruse the MOS:LEAD article and look at some other articles with Good article status to get an idea.

I added more information to the lead about the origin of the library. But based on the observations of Johnbod, I'd like to try to maintain the quotes in the lead since they do emphasize the importance of the structure. If you feel other details are necessary, please let me know.

Butting in - personally I wouldn't do this. Fortunately, the lead now is rather too short. This is a longish article and you should expand the lead to 4 paras of reasonable length by summarizing the bits not now covered. For models, I would look at FAs rather than the incredibly variable GAs, especially if you are aiming for FA later. MOS:LEAD doesn't say that the "concise overview" is all that should be there. It does say: "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources". Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the lead says "No less important for its art, the library houses many works by the great painters...". But actually it is very much less important for its paintings than its architecture, and that should be rephrased. You will never find quotes for the paintings comparable to those for the architecture. Making this sort of thing clear is why the quotes belong in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor adjustments to the lead myself, that I hope you don't disagree with. I think it works very well now. Thank you both Johnbod and Venicescapes for your valuable input! Yakikaki (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki I read through the changes. Some of them are excellent, and I thank you. But I had to move the reference to "Libreria sansoviniana" back. It would be incorrect to use it for anything other than the historical building.Venicescapes (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine by me. Yakikaki (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki I was looking at your edit to the second paragraph of the lead: "The history of the library goes back to 1468 when...". Would it be possible to maintain a more formal tone: "The library was established (or founded) in 1468 when..."Venicescapes (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it's a better wording. Yakikaki (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second main issue I have with the article is the great list and enumeration of works of the collections. My assessment is that the three subsections “Manuscripts”, “Biblical Manuscripts” and “Cartography” could be shortened and re-written in prose (or a mix of prose and lists, as with the “History” subsection just above). As it is now, these sections stray too far off-topic and are not in summary style, as I see it. Rather, it would be more reasonable to name some of the most important of these manuscripts, perhaps grouping them together, to give an overview of what the collection holds. A bullet-list of miniscules doesn’t tell the reader what these are or why they are important. You could of course provide opportunities to explore the subject in-depth via wikilinks or a “see also” section or a “Further information” hatnote. I’m also open to other solutions. But as it stands, some kind of re-organisation of these three sections is needed in order to live up to criterion 3b for a Good article (“the article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail”). On the other hand, I would welcome the addition of a short section on the library today. What are their main activities?

I struggled with this. The section on Biblical manuscripts already existed, and I was hesitant to remove it. Also I suspect that those individual pages are not very linked in Wikipedia. I did look at the British Library, the Vatican Library, and the Bodleian Library to see how the manuscripts are listed. A list seems to be the norm. One alternative possibility could be to move all of the lists to a separate article that just deals with the collection. Do you have any further thoughts/ideas?

Butting in again. Another option is to decant the detail to Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Marciana (or "List of..."), just leaving a summary. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too am wondering if the collection history section (Bessarion's Library and then the additions) would be sufficient for this article and then, as you say, decant the detailed lists into a separate article on manuscripts. One of my concerns is that if we eliminate (for example) the Biblical manuscript list, it could create a number of almost orphan pages that aren't sufficiently linked.Venicescapes (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they are moved off somewhere else it won't alter their situation. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it to you to decide, but I would be supportive of a move as suggested by Johnbod. Yakikaki (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod Okay. We all agree that the detailed lists should be moved to a new page (everything from the subheading "Manuscripts" to the end). How do you think it would be best to do this?Venicescapes (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Splitting. I would suggest List of manuscripts in the Biblioteca Marciana. One key thing is to make it clear where the stuff has come from/gone to. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki, Johnbod I moved the whole detailed section on the manuscripts to a new page and agree that it works much better, both for the original article and for the manuscripts themselves. Thank you for the guidance. I ended up opting for "Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Marciana" which I felt gives more flexibility for future development. Rather than a "list", it has the potential to evolve into a more comprehensive article. I kept however an image of one of the manuscripts on the Marciana page (Venetus A) so that there is an example of a manuscript from Bessarion's original collection and one from the additions (De nuptiis…). I was thinking that it might be appropriate to say a little more about the collection as a whole at the beginning of the section before delving into Bessarion's Library. Let me know.Venicescapes (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you found a very elegant solution, and I'm very happy with the way it looks now. It was a good idea to keep something to illustrate the rich collections. Yakikaki (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing I would like to bring up in this review is simply a list of minor clarity issues listed below. I know it may seem a bit discouraging, but I think you will find on closer inspection that it’s small issues that are easily fixed. Feel free to respond under each point as you address these issues, and we can hopefully quickly tick off the list.

Under the section “Historical background”: in the last paragraph, the sentence “…and other prominent humanists urged the government over time to provide a suitable location…” – I’m not sure whether you with “over time” mean “gradually” or in fact “time and again”? Consider rephrasing this sentence for clarity.

changed to "repeatedly"

In the same paragraph, a bit later: “notwithstanding a statement of intent”: who made this statement of intent? The government?

added "Senate's"

In the same paragraph, the sentence “However, with the nomination of Pietro Bembo as gubernator in 1530”, I would welcome a short description in brackets (or in some other brief way) explaining what a gubernator is/was and why it mattered. It could also be good, if possible, with a brief intersection here to explain why efforts were renewed under Bembo – was he particularly intent on building the library?

explained gubernator and added information on Bembo

Under the section “Building”: the heading “Construction”, in the first sentence: put a short translation or else replace or remove the wording of “renovatio urbis”. Not every reader would understand what it implies.

translation added

Under the same heading, in the first paragraph, the second sentence, I would remove “antiquated” as a possible WP:PEACOCK word. The sentence works fine without it and you still get the idea of what Gritti was trying to change.

removed

Under the same heading, the sentence “This would not only satisfy the terms of the donation, it would also bring honor and glory to the Republic as a center of wisdom, learning, and culture.” – is “bring honor and glory to the Republic” a quotation? Otherwise, consider re-phrasing with somewhat more neutral wording (like “…it would also showcase the self-image of grandeur of the Venetian Republic” or similar).

I checked the text of the deliberation and changed the wording accordingly to "special renown"

Under the heading “Sansovino’s superintendence (1537–c.1560)”, I would again suggest removing “prime” per WP:PEACOCK; its perfectly clear to the reader by now that it is a central and important location.

removed

And regarding the “prime site”: are you referring to the entire St. Mark’s Square (the Piazza) or to the Piazzetta? It’s a bit opaque to me and I had to read the whole first paragraph a few times in order to understand (I think) what is being described here. Consider using more strict references to the Piazza/St. Mark’s Square and the Piazzetta, respectively, and see if you in general can clarify this paragraph so it becomes easier to read. I think the reason for my confusion is that there is both a reference to the greater urban redevelopment project, and reference to the construction of the library. If I were you I would limit myself to the construction history of the library, while only mentioning as a background that it was part of a wider reconstruction scheme.

deleted "prime" and specified "chosen site for the library"

In the next paragraph, “the lateral entry of the mint” is a point of reference which the reader has no idea of where it is; it may be an idea to add some more clarity here (perhaps “it extended from the corner of the Piazza to about half ways of its present length” or whatever is correct).

I deleted the reference to the lateral entry to the mint since the work was halted due to the meat market. The entry to the mint would have been engulfed into the 17th arcade regardless.

Under the heading “Scamozzi’s superintendence (1582–1588)”, avoid the words “chaotic” and “unsightly” as they are not compatible with WP:WORDS. I think you can simply remove them without any loss of meaning.

deleted

Again, in order to avoid confusion about what the subject of the article is and to comply with criterion 3b of a Good article, I would suggest you to completely remove this part: “However, when Scamozzi built the abutting Procuratie Nuove along the southern side of Saint Mark's Square (begun 1583), he continued Sansovino's design for the lower two floors but added a third story based on Palladio's rejected proposal for the rebuilding of the Doge's Palace after the fire of 1577. This third floor employs the Corinthian order and has rectangular aedicule windows, topped by alternating curvilinear and triangular pediments.” If one doesn’t pay proper attention here, one may believe that it was in fact the library that ended up having three storeys.

I removed the text. It was already present when I began editing the article, and I was hesitant to simply cancel it. However, it could as you note) be confusing, and it's discussed on the appropriate page Procuratie

Under the heading “Architecture” and subheading “Upper floor” I must before I delve into the criticism first state that I found this particularly interesting, well-written and of unusually high class for Wikipedia. Well done, I'm impressed! However, I’m unsure what the detailed account of the Serlians add? Consider shortening this in order to stay on subject. It may be enough to point out that “The upper story of the library employs the Ionic order and is characterized by a series of “Serlians”, also known as Venetian windows” and then move on.

Are you referring to the sources the Sansovino would have drawn upon for the Serlian? If so, I think it's important to maintain them. The Marciana can interest different readers for very different reasons. Most readers interested in the architectural aspects will want to know where the inspiration came from for certain design elements so as to understand how Sansovino's travels influenced his choices and to place the library into broader developments in architectural history. Please let me know if I understand your observation correctly.

OK, I can accept that argument and let it be as it is. Yakikaki (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the next paragraph, there are a number of architectural terms: egg and dart motif, eschinus, palms and masks in the collar, festoons, putti. Consider for the sake of clarity either adding links to other Wikipedia articles for them, if these exist, or very briefly explaining what they refer to, or limiting yourself to writing that “several details may have been inspired directly by the Temple of Saturn…”. The word “eschinus” is unfamiliar to me and I cannot find it in my dictionary.

added links to Wikipedia pages and a new diagram for the terms that do not have pages ("eschinus" and "collar").

Under the subheading “Groundfloor” there are some phrases that are not compatible with the neutrality criterion under WP:WORDS: “Much discussed and admired” (by whom?) “implementing various, but unsatisfactory, ideas.” (unsatisfactory according to whom?) and “vaunted” (by whom?). Please address these. The last sentence is fine because it’s clear that it’s Francesco Sansovino who expressed this.

reworded

Under the subheading “Carvings”, consider explaining or exchanging the expression all'antica; not every English-language reader will understand it.

I deleted the term "all'antica" since there are already references to "classical" and "archeological artifacts" which communicate the idea.

Under the same subheading, “and gives the building a sense of authenticity.” could be replaced with e.g. “which is intended to provide a sense of authenticity” in order to avoid possible accusations of impartiality in the description. Similarly, replace “and it fully harmonizes with the gothic Doge's Palace” with something less assertive, e.g. “and can be viewed as a kind of pendant to the Gothic Doge’s Palace”.

modified wording

Under the heading “Interiors” there are again some WP:PEACOCK words. In the sentence “The gilded interior rooms are lavishly decorated with oil paintings by the great masters of Venice's Mannerist period,” I’m afraid you’ll have to get rid of “lavishly” (“decorated with a large number” would be OK I think) and “the great masters”. Again under the subheading “Vestibule”, “clamorous” could be removed without any loss of meaning; a bit further up, “noted” can be removed from before “Italian humanists”. The subheading “Reading Room” contains another “lavish” that is unnecessary.

removed

I like the table with the roundels but all the works you here refer to should be in the bibliography section (I can’t find Sansovino and Hope; if they are cited within other works, please identify these in a suitable way).

They were mentioned in the note, but I copied them in the reference section.

Under the section “Collection” and the subsection “Bessarion's Library”, the second paragraph starts with “In 1454, following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks (1543) and…” – what does “(1543)” refer to? Please, if you could clarify this in the text. In the same subsection, in the fourth paragraph it is written “Of particular interest were the Latin historiographers” – why were they of particular interest?

There was an error in the date. It should be 1453. I added … of particular interest "to Bessarion". It's not clear from anything I've read if this is just his own interest, or if he felt the Latin historiographers were essential to complete his library.

Lastly, there are a few WP:PEACOCK words here too: “Among the irreplaceable treasures are unique scores of operas”, for example. It’s enough to write that they are the handwritten opera scores; this implies that they are irreplaceable in any case.

deleted

Apart from these points, I have also a minor issue regarding the pictures in the article. Overall, these are excellent and used to illustrate the points in the article, but in one case two pictures (Actaeon and Diana and Minerva between Fortune and the Virtues) re-appear later in the part on the ceiling of the reading room. I would remove them as they somewhat clutter the article and since they appear again further below, are not really relevant to the article as basically being duplicates.

I can remove them, but unlike the roundels in the table, they show the grotesques and the gilded framing, giving a sense of the richness of the ceiling. I did add information in the text about the grotesques and the gilding.

A compromise could perhaps be to keep one of them? That would suffice to give the context of the roundels. We should be wary against overcrowding the article with images, in my opinion. Yakikaki (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the roundel by Salviati and kept the roundel by Franco, specifying that he also did the grotesques.

The 12 pictures in some kind of gallery format just under “Oriental languages” are also not relevant to the article all of them. If any of them should be kept, it should be explained why it’s of particular importance (there are many, many beautiful pictures of manuscripts from the library but for them to appear in the article there must be a reason connected to it beyond just being kept there).

This was resolved by default when the whole section was moved to a new page.

Kind regards and I hope I haven't discouraged you with this, Yakikaki (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki Thank you for the considerable time and effort in reviewing the article. Some of the corrections/changes are quickly done. Others will take time. A few will require more research. I'll intersperse comments above.Venicescapes (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki Hello. I did some initial work but have some questions. If you have time, please take a look at my comments/questions in yellow. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I will, I will have time tomorrow evening hopefully! Seems to ge going great! Yakikaki (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to answer your questions and comments, let me know if I missed anything. We're rapidly getting ahead, thanks for addressing my concerns promptly and in an excellent way. Yakikaki (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki Thank you again for all of your time and attention. I think there are two items remaining. (1) I'm working on moving the lists to a new page. (2) When the Library reopens (hopefully on Monday), I should be able to do some more research and rewrite the paragraph on the corner pier. Were there other concerns that I should address?Venicescapes (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I think some of the de-peacocking is going too far. The building is universally recognised as Sansovino's masterpiece, & it it rather shortchanging the reader not to tell them this. Equally it is famous, and important, for the lavishness of its decoration. How to split the MS covered above. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venicescapes thank you. Those are the only two remaining issues. Thank you also Johnbod for your comments and helpful input to the article and the review. As to your concerns regarding the "words to watch" I am unable to interpret the Manual of Style in any other way, given the example and words listed there. I disagree with your viewpoint and I believe on the contrary that the article has gained in clarity by the use of somewhat more neutral language. The message about the importance of the building still comes across. Yakikaki (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I'm unimpressed! Neither lavish nor masterpiece are actually on the list. The policy says: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors.[2] Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." - my bold. WP:PEACOCK used to be a necessary policy 10 years ago, but then became overused & now a reference to it tends to be a red flag, at least as far as I'm concerned. THat page begins: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias.... The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to follow the assessment criteria from GA. The criteria specifically demands that the article should comply with MOS:WTW; whether or not it's overused now or was more important ten years ago I have no idea about. I'm just trying to do my job here. The list of words at MOS:WTW is also clearly indicative, not exhaustive. Having said that, I wouldn't oppose to a formulation such as "is widely considered to be" or something similar, as long as there is a citation. But I do believe that the best way to illustrate the importance of the building to the reader is, as it also says in the sentence you quoted, to demonstrate that importance. But as I stated also before, I'm open to concrete, fruitful proposals for compromise. What exactly do you think should be kept or improved, and how? Yakikaki (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki This might be a happy solution. Johnbod is correct that the Marciana is considered Sansovino's masterpiece. So, we could insert "is considered to be" followed by a note. I already have Howard's reference but will need to go back and check Morresi's book. We should be able to find others.Venicescapes (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venicescapes, Johnbod, that sounds like a good solution to me. I'm happy we could find a solution. Yakikaki (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki I'm sure everything will work out. I looked at a few of your edits. The page that you linked to (Greek scholars in the Renaissance) primarily concerns the academic world around the University of Padua and elsewhere in Italy. To a limited extent, it overlaps with the community of Greek refugees in Venice to which Bessarion was referring in his letter of donation. But we're really talking about different groups of people and also slightly different time periods. It might be useful, however, to add a "see also" at the top of the section since it is an important, but parallel, development. I noticed that you changed "eschinus" to "echinus". But I looked at several architectural sources (both historical and contemporary)that show "eschinus" (see https://books.google.it/books?id=anGPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT69&lpg=PT69&dq=eschinus+capital&source=bl&ots=A65DdrL1Tg&sig=ACfU3U2VIStl8egFrKs7Ov_5nOosFC7xLQ&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio95TTvvLnAhXLeZoKHW-MCgIQ6AEwC3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=eschinus%20capital&f=false and [1])Venicescapes (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the wiki-link to the Greek scholars article is perhaps superfluous, I don't mind if it's not there. I did however notice that it mentions our friend Bessarion, that's why I put it there. Eschninus seems to work just as well as echinus, then; I simply couldn't find the term in my usual reference works, but instead (in Merriam-Webster) as "echinus" with the same meaning. Either is fine, then. Yakikaki (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki I changed Greek scholars to a "See also" and moved it to the section on Bessarion. I think people interested in that section will be most inclined to want to learn more about how he fits into a larger picture. It's an interesting page. I'll work on splitting off the manuscript section tomorrow.Venicescapes (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki I do see the option of "echinus" in some books which is actually faithful to the original Latin word. So, I agree that it's better to write it as "echinus". On the page "Ovolo" (to which I linked), it's written as "echinus". It is possible that "eschinus" is the result of an intial copy error that has been perpetuated in some texts. It does happen. I'd have to do some philological research, but I don't think it's that important.Venicescapes (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Well, in either case I'm fine with both since both seem to be used in English, so it's up to you which one you prefer to use. I don't think much will be gained by diving deeper into the question here. Yakikaki (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki Greetings from Venice. I just found out that they've extended the closure of the public buildings, including the library. So, I won't be able to do research for another week. Is this a problem? In the meantime, I added an image which should make the stages of construction a little clearer for readers.Venicescapes (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Venicescapes. For me it's not a problem, but I also think this isn't a big enough concern to stop the article from passing the review. The guideline for reviewing state that ""The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight" and with that in mind I think it would be wrong to let this stop the review. I can accept in good faith that the solution in fact was much discussed and admired; it sounds plausible and reasonable. Once you do manage to find out more details about it, perhaps you could add a few words afterwords. So I'm going to let the article pass now. I also hope life isn't too difficult for you there, with all these measures taken because of the virus? I hope you are not too much affected. Best regards, Yakikaki (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki Thank you for all of your work and valuable suggestions. I think the article has gained in the process. Thank you also for trusting me to implement the final changes. I need to adjust the paragraph about the corner pier and implement the "considered to be masterpiece" solution for the lead. I want to get a few more sources first. My hope is to eventually get the article to FA. If you have any thoughts or ideas as to what should be added, please let me know. If you're interested in reading further, I also did the Procuratie, Zecca, and Loggia.Venicescapes (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]