Talk:Entertainment in the 16th century

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think this is a detailed account but could be improved by going into more detail into the art of renaissance and why people started praying for that instead of god and how they appraised the human form more (hense nude in pictures). Despite the detail in this source it could be improved.

This account is vandalism. Propose deletion. Kenenjaye Saidykahn (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was recently vandalized; the remedy for that is to revert to a version prior to the vandalism, which I have done. See How to respond to vandalism. The topic seems potentially notable and encyclopedic. However, this article still has serious deficiencies: its sourcing is very weak and much of the discussion borders on original research or synthesis. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]