Talk:Enzo Giudici

Poor referencing

This article needs proper referencing so the facts can be verified.-- CrossTempleJay talk 20:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DoneRacconish^Tk 06:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of referencing

I'm not english speaking, so maybe I can't really catch the problem. Let's see. This article is a translation of the italian wikipedia version (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzo_Giudici). Enzo Giudici many works are neatly listed in this article, and you can also find referencing all over the web, thanks to the references section in this article, or linking to the External links (i.e. for the official blog). Just in the official blog, furthermore, you can find the italian preface of a book ("Il tema della fortuna nella letteratura francese e italiana del Rinascimento", published by Leo S. Holshki Editore - Firenze - 1990.) that many authors wrote in memory of Enzo Giudici. In that preface there is a sort of Enzo Giudici biography. I think that would be enough. --Famgdc (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress

As everyone can see in my talk page reply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Famgdc), I am going to modify this article with closely related referencing, even though I'm not convinced that it was really necessary, because there were already a lot of referencing, but I'll do it the same. I've just modified italian and french articles, now I only need some more time to make it for this one too, in english. Please, let me have some time to operate. Thank you.--Famgdc (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many issues in this article, as well as in the Italian and French versions. I suggest you start with the French version, which is a little bit better than the others. Racconish^Tk 16:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have less familiarity with French than English. In fact someone helped me with French translation. This mean even more time working. Well, let's go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.124.16 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the article before modifing it is a good idea, indeed, for everyone

copied from it:Discussioni utente:Famgdc

As I said, I'm working to set up the articles (that is italian, french and english version), in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. When I put the note in italian and franch articles, I thought I was to be well under way, only to have to finish english one. I discovered with surprise, instead, that in the same time you were undoing step by step all my work, even asserting the lack of citations where I put it, instead. This makes my work even more difficult to set up, jumping from one article to other to see what has changed and to understand why. I'm not saying that my work was perfect, and I was (indeed, are) willing to improve it and to accept advice and help (and you have done it, in some cases, but some actions are leaving me very puzzled).

Here are some examples:

*The "incipit" of the article should be a short abstract with the most salient part of the article; I don't understand why you have deleted:

a) académicien (he was it, referencing prove it)

b) poète (the same referencing prove it, so as the sonnet in Possenti preface, or the "al maestro" sonnet, then there is one of E.G. poems collection between his Works);

c)membre de l'Académie racinienne (he was, you can find it in the same Possenti preface, close to the point where you find that he was member of the Académie de Lyon, too: how could you haven't seen it?

*It's not my fault if a server is in maintenance, as the Tor Vergata University one is now; please, dont' delete the link till you are sure the it's a wrong one! Also, Enzo Giudici has written more than "certaine oeuvres" of Louise Labé, you can easily see it among the works, the first one of the list is just the "Oeuvres complètes". May be I have to riformulate the phrase to avoide some misunderstanding, but there is no lack of referencing aboute this point, even more if you don't stop to the single word but go on reading the specific section.

*The "family" section was intended to illustrate the environment of origin of the character; so if you go to the Giuseppe Sorge article you'll see that the Sorce family changed their name in Sorge in 1914: there is no different name between them, as you said;

* You marked as "original work" the point about " à enseigner dans des écoles de différents degrés (écoles primaires, collèges, lycées)", but this circumstance is displayed both in Possenti and in Diliberto referencing: didn't you seen them?

* In the "Études sur l’École de Lyon" you marked as lack of referencing almost each words, but you can find all referencing about the parafraph at the end of it.Books referencing are strongly different than web referencing. When using web page referencing you need not to indicate pages or notes: links are enough for a clear verifibility. For the same reason, if the same links are giving verifibility to the entire paragraph, you need not to repeat the same web referencing for every each words in the same paragraph or so: I think we are not supposed to put redundant referencing.

These are only few issues I have to discuss and clear about: there are many more of them but not enough time now, to speak about. I knew to have to improve the articles, bur I didn't think to make them up, even for someone else mistakes or lack of attention. I'm sure you really meant to help, and I thank you for your good intention and for some good corrections, but in the whole you have changed the meaning in many parts of the biography of E.G. In this way you have strongly modified the substance of the article, omitting some important aspects of Enzo Giudici work, wich was not uninmportant, if you see the lot of distinguished scholars that where in the Committee of Honour of the work Studi in memoria di Enzo Giudici: Il tema della fortuna nella letteratura francese e italiana del Rinascimento: two presidents of the "Société Francaise des Seiziémistes"; two presidents of the Académie de Lyon, one president of the Association Internationnale des Etudes Francaises, one president de la Société d'Histoire littéraire de l'Institut de la France, one president de la Société d'études du XVIIIe siècle, one president of the Association Renaissance Humanisme Réforme and so on. I don't think that all this scholars would risk their name and reputation for a small french teacher, don't I?

I'll do all my best to improve the article (and I'm working for this), but please, let me work quietly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famgdc (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

This last sentence reeks of WP:OWN. As reminded in the edit window, "if you do not want your writing to be edited, then do not submit it here". Some of your issues are discussed below. Kindly clarify the others. Thanks, Racconish^Tk 07:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Per WP:LEAD, the lede should be a summary of the most important subjects.

Giudici is notable as an academic, not a poet. There is no section on his poetry in the body of the article.
The académie de Lyon is not an important French institution, not to mention the obscure académie Racinienne. Such information is better placed in the "Awards" section. Racconish^Tk 07:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family

This is an article on Enzo Giudici, not his family. If his grand father is notable, he may deserve an article in WP, but a developemnt on the grand father's notability here is sheer WP:COATRACK and WP:SYN.Racconish^Tk 07:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text books

I am not arguing he did not write text books, but that your - vague - claim, they "have been adopted by many Italian schools even several years after his death and still prized nowadays for their value and completeness" is not supported by any source. Racconish^Tk 07:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the Enzo Giudici article

As the E.G. article has been made firstly in italian, and as I'm italian too, I have started a discussion about this article on italian wikipedia page. I think that setting first italian version of the article can help to clear easier the issues it has (and those it has not). Furthermore, it's easier for me to explain my reasons in my native language, without risking of making things worse with a bad translation.--Famgdc (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to finalize it first in Italian, why do you publish it here? And if you admit it is unsatisfactory here, why do you resent other editors critics or attempts to improve it?Racconish^Tk 07:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I create italian article first, and I waited some months before translating it in english and french, modifing it according to the observations and suggestions raised there, so I thought that the article was tested when I put it on the en. and fr. wiki; it wasn't so, as I've seen then. I asked for having some time to operate over the three articles, then, but even though the articles were initially identical, consistent with their translations into other languages, of course, "editor critics" were different from one to another and difficult to follow for me, at least contemporary. I don't feel resentful for attempts to improve the article, but I only don't agree with some critics that I consider unfounded (in my opinion, of course), even though I mean to build on right suggestions (and you did some, I admit this). Since it takes too much effort for me, now, to act simultaneously over three different fronts, and since I find it difficult to properly explain the reasons of my choices using another language, I think had better to do it in italian first, testing the article there, and also mending it of some naive errors due to my inexperience on wiki. Don’t worry: the italian one will be only one step, - the first one - of my E.G. article revision. I think I’ll add some explications for each change, to make things clearer, going on step by step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famgdc (talk • contribs) 13:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Enzo Giudici. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]