Talk:Procuratie/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Procuratie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Notes

Johnbod Hello. I'm starting to look at the Procuratie and will have some ideas to ask you about. For right now I have a question. On the other pages (Marciana, Zecca, Loggetta), the notes were automatically organized in two columns. Here, they're coming out as a single column. Any ideas as to why?Venicescapes (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

See now - I added ...reflist|30em}}. But I see 3 cols, which I also do at Bib Mar. There's a how-to page somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod How strange. I see two columns both here and on the Marciana page. Anyway, thank you. I shall proceed. I'll let you know when there's enough to look at.Venicescapes (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably I have a wider screen than you - it adjusts for that. Anyway both look fine to me. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod Thank you for the lead. The article is going to take some time to organize and flesh out. I'll keep you posted.Venicescapes (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod Hello. I'm basically finished with three of the sections (procurators, Procuratie Nuove, and Ridotti). I still need to work on Procuratie Vecchie and the Napoleonic Wing. But I need a break. My plan is for each of those sections to have a similar structure with historical background, construction history, and architecture. I will be taking a few photos the next time I'm in the square. If in the meantime, you'd like to take a look at what has already been done, please let me know if something else should be added.Venicescapes (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Added touches - going nicely. At some point the lead should be bulked out. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod Thank you. I'll be in touch in a few weeks. When you get a moment, please give me an idea of the additional information that should be worked into the lead.Venicescapes (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, per WP:LEAD it should be (given the length of the rest) 4 shortish paragraphs, summarizing the rest, & probably with a para on the effect of the ensemble rather than the parts. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod I think the article is now at an acceptable point.Venicescapes (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod Hello. I was wondering whether the page currently entitled "Procurators of Saint Mark's" should be amended to "Procurators of Saint Mark". The Italian could be translated either way. But I looked at several sources by major English-speaking historians, and I see it only as "Procurators of Saint Mark", without the genitive. Also, for the "Procuratie" page, is it simply a matter of waiting for the article to be assessed on the quality scale and the importance scale?Venicescapes (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I've done the ratings. For the page move, the procedure is explained at WP:RM - it's actually simpler than it may sound. That will start a discussion. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod Thank you as always. I'll follow the procedure for the page title.Venicescapes (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Legend

CaroleHenson Can you take a look at the legend on a mobile. I'm showing each line centered.Venicescapes (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

My view of the legend in mobile view is fine. It looks good. I don't see any centering.

Is your mobile view so bad that the legend won't work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I see it centered, but it doesn't matter. It works fine.Venicescapes (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha!

GA nomination

Venicescapes I was looking at this article to see if I wanted to review it, but there is a lot that needs to be done first. Particularly editing for brevity and focus, and citing content throughout the body of the article. If you're interested, I would be happy to share more information.

It absolutely looks like an interesting article and it would be great to make it a good article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Thank you for taking a look and for your interest. Perhaps, as you suggest, I should address your initial concerns before beginning the formal review process. Please let me know.Venicescapes (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend that. I am not sure what you are asking me to let you know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Can you share some of your concerns? You mention brevity and focus. Are there sections that you feel should be condensed or deleted?Venicescapes (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

To start, it would be good to add citations where there are none in the article.

I am in the middle of something right now, but I will come back to this later on today and give some more specific comments - kind of a mini-peer review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Not so mini after all, but at well on the way to a GA review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have been adding citations, cool. I will work on this now - I needed a break from reviewing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

A pre-GA review

General and intro

First of all, the article is interesting and very well-written!

The more I read it, the closer I realize the article is for GA. If you can add the citations - or remove uncited content - I would be happy to move quickly to a GA review, which won't take much time or effort due to this review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way, you do a really great job of explaining architecture so that it is accessible to a wide range of readers. Great job!
There isn't too much content - except in one subsection mentioned below where it would be nice to summarize or put some of detail in a note. I think my mind thought there was too much because of the amount of uncited content (which my mind translates to needs to be removed if not tagged).

The main issue for me is the amount of uncited text. That should be fixed before a GA review. It makes me question if some of the content is original research, particularly lone sentences like "The effective sale of the position also made it possible for young and ambitious nobles to quickly rise to high office and to consequently exert great influence" or entire uncited paragraphs.
The introduction looks good. I added a couple of links. It's a fair length for a GA article, but some additional information, like on the architectural changes as the result of who was using the buildings (i.e., due to wars, occupation) and/or something else that you think would be good / notable to highlight would be great to round it out to three paragraphs.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC) I moved the Saint Mark's Square image so it's not so busy at the beginning, see what you think.

As you requested in the Observations by Venicescapes section (bullet 1), I moved it back.

Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that there are some creative solutions for the infobox and the multiple images. Where possible, it's best to use infobox formats (perhaps embedding three uses of {{Infobox building}}) and the templates as intended. I am not sure that it is a big deal, but as an FYI, I got almost all that you have the multiple image with the file formatting parameters. It seems strange that a header cannot be added - but how much is it needed (i.e., it is helpful for the greater WP community, specifically to ease the training curve, to use templates, etc. as intended).–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Done I went ahead and embedded {{Infobox historic site}} which was easier to get formatted correctly than the Infobox building. This way, future editors can easily add additional historic site fields, if desired.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As you requested in Observations by Venicescapes, I made the font "<big>" - as you had in your version of the basic infoboxes. It's discouraged, but you are absolutely right! It does look better.

Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

~~Half done~~ I showed one way to format the image in a standard method for Saint Mark's Square layout. The only thing that cannot be formatted is the header, but that can be addressed in the caption, as I showed in the example as well. If that works for you, that would be grreeaatt! (Like Tony the Tiger says)

I will post a question on Teahouse or and Image formatting talk page about how to format the image without using a multiple image format, which will just create confusion among other editors (and possibly start an unhelpful trend).–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted the question to the Teahouse here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As recommended at the Teahouse, I posted this at Help talk:Pictures.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. The only other way to add a header to a single image than the {{multiple image}} template is to put it in a table, which is probably a bit more cumbersome. So, this is the second person to weigh-in that it's best to stick with the format as it is now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the bold formatting in the St. Mark's Square caption, per MOS:BOLD.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Images should be placed under the section headings so that it is inline with the top of the text. And, it is best to avoid sandwiching text between two images. They also should be placed inline with the applicable content. I changed the images throughout so that they are properly placed. I also changed the size in a few cases to make it less crowded.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your comment at Observations by Venicescapes, please change the image placement, but if you could bear this points in mind, I would appreciate it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The images look fine. Thanks for keeping them under the section heading in all but one case or two, I think. There's a bit of sandwiching, but that's fine. It seems that the images are next to the relevant text.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the following changes are formatting issues: templates to other articles, links, section headings, images, etc. There are a very few punctuation and word changes. Where I specifically ask a question or have a suggestion for you the content will be in purple.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC) This diff shows all the edits to content, and excludes changes to notes and captions (there is a separate diff for that below).–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I appreciate the olive branch. If you would like, we could slowly work through this together. If not, I can simply bow out … truly no problem.Venicescapes (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Venicescapes. I would be happy to work through this - and slowly is fine.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Procuratie Vecchie

In the Procurators of Saint Mark section: I used the {{main}} template and the correct article title, edited the caption for the image of Antonio Cappello (primarily links and removed bold), I made minor edit to the section, including having removed redundant definition of de supra. Please see what you think.

Just to keep this straight, the original sentence was returned.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

In the Historical background section: I moved "including the long building" to follow "properties".–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

In the Construction section: I used proper section headings. If you don't want this level to appear in the table of contents, you can use {{TOC limit}} below the intro section. I added that template. I removed the part about the progress was gradual, since the following section talks about needing to get rental property up and running for revenue. I changed the wording in the second sentence to "The surviving sections of the previous building were demolished to make space for the timely development of buildings with ground-floor shops and upper apartments to limit the loss of revenue to the procurators." See if you think it reads better (or not).–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Changed above to below - underlined.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to keep this straight, the original sentence was returned.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

In the Architecture section: I correctly formatted the subsections - and added a link to War of the League of Cognac, assuming that is the war. Is that what is meant by "wartime"?
I added a number of links to the facade section due to the number of architectural terms. I am not understanding "Roman mural construction". Is that specific to hanging / painting a mural? Something else? It seems like since it needs square pillars it must be something else (or perhaps more broadly applying to mosaics)?
In the Later History section, I added 2 links.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Procuratie Nuove

In the Historical Background section: I added some links and a straight apostrophe. Is it possible to summarize or put some of the detail into a note?
In the Construction section, I formatted the see also, subsections, font (remove boldmade); made a minor edit; and added links.

In the Architecture section: I formatted the see also and subsections. In the layout subsection, I made minor copy edits - removed "could be rented out..." mentioned a number of times already - and added a link.
In the facade subsection, I made a minor edit.
In the third paragraph of the facade subsection: What is an "aedicule window"? niche type window? something else?
In Later history, I added a few links.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ridotti of the Procurators

I moved the portrait: It is best not to sandwich text between images + best to keep the images inline with the related content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I changed the heading so Ridotti is in italics, as it is in the body of the section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I added 2 links and made one minor copy edit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to keep things straight here, I made an error with one of the link and returned "Casin dei nobili" - and removed the {{ill}} template, because there is no article with that name in the it.wikipedia.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Procuratie Nuovissime (Napoleonic Wing)

I added two links.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

References and notes

There is a mixture of notes and citations, and the citations are a bit unusually formatted, I will come back to that after a bit of a break.

Your citations look the most like WP:CITESHORT, so I will make some edits -- and I hope you don't mind, separate notes out from citations. Of course, the current version, before I start, will be available in history.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. This is a diff that shows the before and after snapshot of all the changes to short citations and notes - all in the order that they appeared in the text. For instance, if there was a source, then a note, that is the way it was edited. If there was a note and then source(s), that order continued.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think more citations may be needed than is initially clear, because sometimes what is tagged like a citation is an uncited note. Again, I'll come back to this.

Yep, there are a couple of notes that didn't have sources.

Is it true that there are no links to any of the sources in the citations?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria check

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Based upon this version, the things that need to be done for the GA review are:

Add citations where they are needed - looking at both the content and the notes.
Ensure that there is no original research, such as coming to conclusions based upon the content, that is not stated in a source(s).
It would be nice to have a bit more added to the intro, perhaps such as the changes as the occupants changed due to war, occupation, as well as a nicer - more open plan, etc. (hexagon layout, I think it was called)
Ensure that you agree with, or edit, the few wording changes I made.
Run a copyvio report and ensure that there are no issues (me or someone else if they select this article for a GA review before I hear back from you).–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Good morning. To answer your concern, there is no original research that cannot be verified nor is there any copyright violation.

I carefully reviewed your extensive edits from yesterday, and while I understand and appreciate all of your time and effort, I’m afraid I don’t agree with many. Some are rather heavy handed, and I would have appreciated (and frankly expected) some degree of consultation prior to such a massive intervention. This, however, is the nature of Wikipedia. I will point out only three of the items that are now particularly problematic and that you might want to review. 1) There is an incorrect use of terms in the Procurators section (second paragraph). If you prefer the compound sentence rather than the colon with the listing, you should repeat “procurators”. It is highly inappropriate to simply refer to “the de supra”, “the de citra”, and “the de ultra”. 2) In the Procuratie Vecchie section (Bon’s superintendence), the meaning of one of the sentences is very unclear. You write of “timely development of buildings” which seems that you are referring to other structures. At any rate, the original sense has been lost. 3) In Ridotti of the Procurators, you have created a red link, Casino dei Nobili, to an unrelated building in Pisa.Venicescapes (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, I am sorry if I was not clear that you may revert wording changes - and that I was looking for your input.

1. I was just trying to avoid duplication of the definition. If you have a better way to do that, or see no problem with having it duplicated, that is perfectly fine with me.

Done. I returned the original sentence. If you want to address the duplication, that would be great. If not, that's ok. It is not a big deal.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

2. ~~The sentence seemed awkward.~~ Please rephrase it as you would like.

Done. I took care of it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean that I returned the sentence.

I struck out a sentence where I remembered the issue incorrectly. (mixed up with another article).–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

3. I am not sure how I created a red link to the wrong place. I will look at it, but if you want to correct that first, go for it!–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. In the Italian wikipedia, when I put Casin dei nobili in the search window, it brings up Casino dei nobili... which I am not used to in en.wikipedia. It's fixed now, and I removed the {{ill}} link as there is not an article with that name in the Italian version. I will be much wiser about this now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, regarding the original research, it was not at all my intention to insult you. I apologize if it came across that way.

I didn't realize I would get so involved either, most of the issues that I tackled... by far... were formatting issues. You are an incredible writer. I hope that things look rosier now. Is there something else that concerns you?–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I went back and thoroughly looked at the diff (also provided above) of my minor edits, links, etc. and there are just a couple other wording changes, generally a word or two. You may want to look at "But in his architectural treatise L’Idea dell’Architettura Universale (The Idea of a Universal Architecture), he is highly critical..."

I am feeling really bad about your reaction, I thought that you would be happy to know that so much progress had been made. I am so very sorry that my being "bold" to move it along was done so quickly and without consultation. I see that it was harmful. I can see that you have a lot of pride in the work on the article, as you should! What can I do to make this better?–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Ok. Thank you. There are several areas of concern for me. I’ll start today with the easiest.

Observations by Venicescapes

My initial observations are:

Infobox: The infobox, as you’ve conceived it, is acceptable. But what I don’t particularly care for is that there is no graphic hierarchy. The principal titles (ex. Procuratie Vecchie) are the same size and same bold type as the information on dates, architect, etc. which is clearly secondary. With the old Infobox, the distinction was clear. Can this be corrected?

Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Diagram of the Square: The diagram, in its present location, spans the “Procurators” section and the “Procuratie Vecchie” section. I had intentionally placed it directly under the infobox, treating it almost as an extension of the infobox. This is why I made it the same width. The reasons are that 1) it concerns all three procuratie and should not appear to be associated with any one in particular and 2) on 15” and 17” screens, it occupies more space in the “Procurators” section. This pushes the text further down and prevents the title “Procuratie Vecchie” from creeping up alongside the image of Cappello (which it now does). It also aligns “Procuratie Vecchie” and the next title, “Historical background”. Again, on a 15” and 17” screen, one is alongside the image of Cappello, the other is under.

That's fine.

Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank youVenicescapes (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Bold type: I agree that bold type does not belong in a caption. But there is a significant difference between a caption (which simply explains an image) and the legend/key of a diagram which explains codes. When readers look at the diagram, they see a building with a letter on it. They look down to the legend, and they want to immediately see what the letter corresponds to. It’s important that the letters stand out. This is also the case with the colors on the other two diagrams. I had also evidenced the Procuratie names to help people find them immediately which may (or may not) be advantageous.

I can certainly understand wanting to make things easier/better for the readers. If you don't mind, I have a couple of thoughts for a legend. Can I come back to this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Not done yet.

See the legend for "Saint Mark's Square in 1581" at Procuratie § Construction–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
See the legend for the layout by the infobox at Procuratie#Procurators_of_Saint_Mark–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
And another at Procuratie#Ridotti_of_the_Procurators.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You found a very professional and clear solution. I adjusted the colors to better match the diagram.Venicescapes (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, it looks good! Thanks.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The areas where I am more concerned are image positions and, most importantly, notes (more to come).

I made my comment about image placement above in the General and into section - I think bullet #6. Basically, go ahead, but please bear in mind the identified guidelines. It generally looks so much nicer and is so much more convenient if they are properly positioned, but I understand that we are looking at different screens, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I moved a few images, but I'm still not satisfied with the image placement . I looked for further guidance on Wikipedia. I couldn't find much. Can you please let me know where to find the guidelines you mention? There are some instances where, in my opinion, the page would look better with the image alongside the heading. For example (I realize that it may look different on your screen), in the section on the Procuratie Nuove, there are two subheadings (Scamozzi's superintendence (1583–1597) and Later periods of superintendence (1597–ca. 1660)). Because the first paragraph is fairly short, the second heading gets pushed right. I honestly think it looks much better in these circumstances to use the image to push both subtitles right so that they are aligned.Venicescapes (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Some of the guidelines are at MOS:IMAGELOCATION. It's really hard to find one place that has the image info. It's kind of pet peeve of mine to have the images placed before the heading, but I will get over it. (I worked on a lot of art articles, and it's doing that work that helped develop a particular set of approaches for formatting, grouping, etc. images with other editors who are also sticklers about placement, use of templates, etc.)

Go ahead and move them, it's obvious you have been trying to work it out. If you could avoid sandwiching text and try to keep the images near the relevant text, I would appreciate that!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Notes: I’m perfectly fine with distinguishing detailed notes (for the more serious reader/researcher) from citations. But it needs to be done carefully. As it is now, you moved some notes but left fragments of other notes scattered throughout the text. For now, see the following two examples:

The administration of many of the properties, including the long building erected at Ziani's expense along the northern side of the square, was subsequently delegated to the procurators de supra. The act is in the Archives in PS b. 70, proc. 155, cc. 17–26. This structure, shown in Gentile Bellini's Processione di Corpus Domini in Piazza san Marco (1496), was a two-story building with a series of rental apartments above and shops on the ground floor that were also leased.

I know that it's an issue that "The act is in the Archives in PS b. 70, proc. 155, cc. 17–26 ." and two others are out there. It bothers me, too. I was thinking about that as I fell of to sleep (but forgot it the morning.) I will put them in citations for right now and the wording may need to be tweaked. Let's see how that looks in a minute or two.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, it was more than three. It made the edits here. How does that look?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

But the precise contributions of Bon and Celestro to the design remain unclear. John McAndrew proposes that the layout may be the design of Celestro whereas the façade can be attributed to Bon. A collaboration between Bon and Celestro also existed at the Great School of San Rocco. Manuela Morresi suggests, however, that the Tuscan architect involved in the Procuratie Vecchie and the Great School of San Rocco may be two separate individuals. Bon, as proto, was nevertheless responsible for oversight during construction.

This is done here, moving italicized part into the note.

I looked for stray fragments of notes and found a few more. I think that problem is resolved. I did notice that you changed the formatting of the bibliographical references. That should also be done for the references that are in the notes. Venicescapes (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Changing all of the bibliographical refernces in the notes could be a great deal of work, and it may not be worth the effort. Since Wikipedia says to avoid changing citation style if a consistent style already exists, I'm wondering if it would be simpler to use the original style.Venicescapes (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

All of the short citations are in a similar style. Are you saying change the full citations so that date appears first? I would be happy to do that. I had even thought of putting all the long citations and bibliography in {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc. formats. Or, at least changing the location and publisher to Venice: Best Books. I have no problem doing the extra work.

The short citations make it so easy to find the books in the bibliography / source / reference section - you just have to remember the author and year. It might be nice to create the links that directly bring a reader from the short citation to the actual book. If you'd like, I would be happy to work on that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see Citation approach below where I grouped all the citation options in one place.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

For the images, is there a way I can send you a screenshot?Venicescapes (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please go to my talk page, then on the left there is an option to "Email this user".–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I just took a look at the "mobile view" of the article. It looks pretty good, except at the very top where there's the infobox and the diagram of the layout. Does your screen look better now that I moved a couple of images?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, Venicescapes, but I would like to copy your responses to the relevant areas so final resolution of each item is in one place.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I am working it out - posting in two places in some cases.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I added some citations and reworded a few sentences for clarity.Venicescapes (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I looked at a few of the FA articles to get a better idea and noticed that some (Cleopatra for example) use "note" and then a number rather than letters. Would it be possible/difficult to do the same here? For me, it would be preferable.Venicescapes (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see Citation approach below where I grouped all the citation options in one place.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I figured out how to do it. So, don't worry. Again, looking at the Cleopatra article, I noticed that the citations relative to the notes are with the notes. So the reader doesn't have to click again. Do you mind if I do the same here?Venicescapes (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Go for it.

Cleopatra also has the links from the short ref to specific books in the section called Sources in that article (which I mentioned above as a nice feature - and that I would be happy to do).–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see Citation approach below where I grouped all the citation options in one place.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, I responded to your latest comments in this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I see that a sweep of the article for cite order needs to be done, but I thought I would wait until the rest of the work on the citations / notes is completed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation approach

Since the key issue right now seems to be citation and note format, I thought I would just summarize thoughts / options here:

Short citations - If you like, I would be happy to format them so that like the Cleopatra article, a reader could click on the link and go right to the book.
Long citation

I would be very happy to format the long citations so that date follows the author's name. I would also like to put the location and publisher in "location: publisher" format, it reads a bit easier.
Going a bit further, I would also be happy to format the long citations and bibliography items with citation templates, if you like. (If I did a good job (as I intend) on the long citations and location/publisher for the bibliography, I don't think it would change the look to the reader to have the citation in templates.)

Format notes as is done in Cleopatra - works for me.

Using the [note #] format.
Citations within the body of the note like the Cleopatra article.

I like your approach for notes. What do you think about the options for short and long citations and the bibliography?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Can you give me some links to samples? I'm not sure what each looks like. I instinctively use/prefer the format my usual editor wants. I'll look at the image placement again tomorrow. Thank you for your patience.Venicescapes (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, hello, Venicescapes! The example for the short citation, which links to the book in Sources is in the Cleopatra article.

It will just be easier to make some tweaks here for the long citation and bibliography and give you a diff to see if you like it. The change would include formatting the date at the front of the citation and location: publisher format.

Here's the diff for the bibliography, which I now see you call Procuratie#References. I made tweaks to the 2nd through 5th items, also tweaking the journal info a bit. Here is the diff for the long citation. See citations 3 and 8 in Procuratie#Citations.

For citations using templates, see Mary Beth Edelson#References.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You didn't need to change it to Bibliography... I just realized that's what I had been calling it and was correcting myself. Whichever you prefer is fine with me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I did the notes like the Cleopatra page. If you have time, please look at all of the formats for references. Some have colons; some do not. I looked at the template solution but have doubts. That's a lot of blue which, for me at least, makes it harder to read.Venicescapes (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I am confused. Yes, the references look different. I changed just a few so you could see what they look like - and gave you the numbers of the ones that were changed. Did you see what I said about the long citations and Bibliography/References?

It's a lot of work to switch over to templates at this point. So, if you don't like that approach, that's fine by me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Then, if you like the new format, I will continue on with changing the rest of the citations. If you don't like it, I will back the changes out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand. Yes, it would be advantageous to be able to click on (or hover over) the short citation/reference and immediately go to (or see) the full citation/reference (citation is obviously correct, but it makes me think of a traffic ticket). So, yes, if you feel up to doing that it would be good. For the templates, I'm still not sure I quite understand. I looked at the Cleopatra page again. Clicking on some of the titles leads to google book page which may or may not have a preview. I'm not sure that that is always helpful. Clicking on others leads to a page to purchase the book, but the ISBN already does that. Clicking on others goes to the full text on archive.org which is very helpful. So perhaps adding a link to the on-line text (if it exists) would be good. Your thoughts on all of this?Venicescapes (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes I copied your response here to respond by issue:
I think I understand. Yes, it would be advantageous to be able to click on (or hover over) the short citation/reference and immediately go to (or see) the full citation/reference (citation is obviously correct, but it makes me think of a traffic ticket). So, yes, if you feel up to doing that it would be good.

I would be happy to do that. It would go to the book in the Bibliography section. I'll work on that today. No traffic ticket for me. –CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

For the templates, I'm still not sure I quite understand. I looked at the Cleopatra page again. Clicking on some of the titles leads to google book page which may or may not have a preview. I'm not sure that that is always helpful. Clicking on others leads to a page to purchase the book, but the ISBN already does that. Clicking on others goes to the full text on archive.org which is very helpful. So perhaps adding a link to the on-line text (if it exists) would be good. Your thoughts on all of this?Venicescapes (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The templates don't add any new functionality. It just ensures that the citations are formatted correctly and consistently. Parameters are filled in, like title, publisher, etc.

from <ref name="The 1444 Gallery">{{Cite news |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/44500026/the_1444_gallery_mary_beth_strauss/ |title=The 1444 Gallery - Mary Beth Strauss (later Edelson) |date=1961-12-03 |work=The Indianapolis Star |access-date=2020-02-15 |pages=139}}</ref>

and Wikipedia does it's magic to change it to ""The 1444 Gallery - Mary Beth Strauss (later Edelson)". The Indianapolis Star. December 3, 1961. p. 139. Retrieved February 15, 2020."

There are various templates, and books look different than journals, etc. But, as I said, it's a lot of work without a big bang benefit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

My thought it that it would be nice to format the long citations and bibliography manually.

(copied from above)

Here's the diff for the bibliography, which I now see you call Procuratie#References. I made tweaks to the 2nd through 5th items, also tweaking the journal info a bit. Here is the diff for the long citation. See citations 3 and 8 in Procuratie#Citations.

It's not a lot of work, but it would bring consistency across the citations and bibliography. Would that be okay for you?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Whatever you can do (yes, manually might be better/easier) to make everything consistent could be wonderful. Thank you. On another note, when you have moment, please let me know where you think citations are lacking, text is not clear, or the text should be expanded.Venicescapes (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I will work on it today (my today, which just started a couple of hours ago). If you like, Venicescapes, I could add {{cn}} tags where they are needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think any clarification tags are needed. You are a great writer!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I prefer that you let me know where I need to add them rather than putting in tags. Thank youVenicescapes (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, I manually edited the long citations in the Reference section—as well as the items in the Bibliography and Further reading sections.

I found out that in order to have the short citation link to a specific book, the citation templates need to be used. I am happy to do it, but only if you think it makes a material difference. What do you think?

Regarding the places that need citations, there's a pretty straightforward way to tell what needs citations.

Starting with the Procurators of Saint Mark section, scroll through the article and look at the end of each paragraph and ensure that there is a citation.
Where there is a note at the end of the sentence, but no citation, verify that the sources in the note are also for the sentence.
Check to see that the notes are properly cited. I think that there are two or three without citation.

If the missing citations are resolved, I am happy to start the GA review page — the article is about 98% of the way through the GA review at this point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

CaroleHenson I made some additions to the lead. What do you think?Venicescapes (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! Great job!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Update

CaroleHenson Hello. Thank you for all your long and hard work. It looks better than ever! I'm very pleased.

I made a few edits which you might want to double check. I also reviewed the Procurators and Procuratie Vecchie sections. I think they're sufficiently referenced. If not, let me know. I also reworded/shortened a few sentences.
I will go through the other sections tomorrow.
I still need to add more to the lead.
I put two images in the final section in an image box so that they occupy less space.
You mentioned at one point something about a sweep of the article for cite order. What does this mean/involve?Venicescapes (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes Great, thanks! It's looking good.

This is an example where the cite order needs to be corrected. ~~"... he began the~~ don't see any others needing re-ordering.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) That was the only one, and I took care of it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Oops. It looks like I cut out part of an edit. - I just struck it out because there was only one place where the citation numbers were out of order.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Good Morning. I've made a list of citations to add. But I need to get to the library which, alas, is currently closed. Rumors are that they will reopen after 18 May. So, I'll have to take a break until then. I'll work on the lead in the meantime.Venicescapes (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, sounds like a good plan!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Hello, I hope all is well (in Colorado?). I wanted to let you know that the libraries did not reopen as planned. I'm hopeful that something will open next week. So, I haven't forgotten. I just have my hands tied. Thank you for the patience.Venicescapes (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Venicescapes, all is well here, thanks! I hope all is well with you, too. Yes, it's a new world right now. I can do a curbside pickup of books at my library, if that would help. In any event, I don't mind waiting. There's no hurry.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Hello in Colorado. One of the libraries is now offering limited services. Users have to wear masks and gloves, and books (which have to be reserved) get disinfected after every consultation. I don't have access to all of the books/sources I'll need, but at least I can move forward. I will need to add some sources to the bibliography, basically collective works and historical reprints. So I wanted to ask what style guide you used. I don't recognize it as one of the humanities systems.

Is all well with you?Venicescapes (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, I was replicating the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite magazine}}, etc. formats. See citing sources and Rebecca Lee Crumpler, for example.

I am doing well, thanks! I hope you are, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I’m glad that you are well. Life in Venice is still surreal. But the city is slowly beginning to have some activity.

Thank you for the helpful links to the citation information. I read the pages you indicated and did some more research. The citation system that the templates are promoting is the APA (American Psychological Association) system. This system has the advantage of placing the emphasis on the date of the publication in order to verify currency and relevancy. It is generally more suited to the sciences, technology, and social sciences which are in constant evolution. So, the date is very important. The APA system is somewhat awkward for reprints and anthologies, and it doesn't even seem to contemplate a multi-volume work published over a long period, such as Sanudo's diaries. The humanities tend to use other systems (e.g. MLA, MHRA, Chicago (the notes and bibliography version)) that focus on the author’s expertise and subject in order to help interpret sources in an historical context. The WP citation page you indicated gives the APA system as the first example. But, further down, there is an example of the MLA format used for the citation (even though MLA is actually a bracketed system).

So in the case of the Procuratie, I’m wondering if one of the humanities systems might be more appropriate and helpful to readers. For example, following the rationale of these systems, it is more useful for a reader to immediately know that Deborah Howard wrote a book about architecture than to know that she wrote a book in 1980 (from the APA reference of an unknown subject).

I personally have been adopting MHRA (subscript as opposed to bracketed) for the pages I develop. Could you accept it or any of the others?Venicescapes (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I am glad that life is beginning to get back to normal somewhat in Venice. I am so sorry about the flooding that had to be endured over several months; I bet that clean-up was quite daunting. Life is definitely surreal here - not just due to coronavirus.

I am just used to the format generated by the citation templates, but yes, please use whatever format you would like to use.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Status

CaroleHenson Good Morning. I hope that life in Colorado is not too topsy-turvy.

I wanted to first thank you for all of your suggestions and time. Overall, the article is much improved. I found many of your ideas and solutions to be excellent (particularly the clear separation of notes and references and the colour-coded legend), and I have adopted them for other articles that I typically work on. As I mentioned, some of the local libraries are now offering limited services. So, after a few trips, I was able to verify and add references. I think I've referenced everything. I've also added more links.

I ended up opting for the MHRA format for the references and bibliography. Since it's a specifically humanities system, it takes into account all of the formatting issues that typically arise when dealing with older texts. I also think that it appropriately places the emphasis on the expertise of the author.

If you're still interested and have time, please take a look and let me know if you feel that anything else is still lacking. Kind regards,Venicescapes (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Venicescapes. That's really nice of you. Sure, I will take a look today. I have seen you hard at work on the article. I am happy that we were able to work together.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, the article looks really good! You've done a great job! Was there something in particular that you wanted me to look at?–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Thank you for taking the time to read through the article again. I was wondering whether you think it could be nominated for Good Article at this point or whether it needs more work.Venicescapes (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, I think it's absolutely ready to nominate as a GA. I can scan for minor edits, but as I scanned it yesterday, it looks good and don't expect to find much.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes,

Procurators of Saint Mark section, second paragraph: I am not understanding: In addition to the associated public honour, the office of procurator ensured an active role in the political life of Venice by guaranteeing a seat in the Senate after 1453 and exonerating the individual from the obligation to accept other political appointments, including those on the mainland and overseas, and to undertake any but extraordinary embassies to foreign courts.[2][6][note 2] - starting with "exonerating the individual".–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this could be explained better. I'll give it some thought and get back with a solution. The key to understanding is that a noble was obligated to accept any office to which he was elected (unless he paid a fine for refusing his civic duty). So, in the case of the procurators, they were not required to accept positions, particularly those outside the city.

CaroleHenson I rewrote the section. Please let me know if it makes more sense.Venicescapes (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, Yes, that's really good. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I'm glad it reads better. I'll proceed with nomination for GA. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Procuratie Vecchie section, Later history subsection, The Procuratie Vecchie remained rental property managed by the procurators de supra for much of its history. does retained work better than remained?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"was" could work

Here's the sum of my minor edits [1].–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The edits all look fine.Venicescapes (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, cool!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Procuratie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 15:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has reviewed this yet, I will try to do it in the upcoming days. Yakikaki (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki Thank you. I look forward to working through it with you.Venicescapes (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Part one

I will post my first part of the review now and hope to be able to continue tomorrow. This part is up to and including the Procuratie Vecchie section.

First of all, I see that you’ve already been through a thorough review process together with CaroleHenson. CaroleHenson helped me with my GA nomination of Lund Cathedral and I have myself learned a lot from her. I also know that Venicescapes is extremely knowledgeable and good at writing about the beautiful architecture of Venice. So I was not surprised to see that the article is already in excellent condition, basically ready to pass the GA. Consider my review more in the line of suggestions which we can discuss, therefore. There are no major obstacles from promoting the article even now, but if you would find the time to address my comments below perhaps we can polish it just a little bit further. Fantastic work from your side!

Lead:

I would recommend italicising Procuratie Vecchie, Procuratie Nuouve and Procuratie Nuovissime the first times they appear in the lead, per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.

I'm not sure. It would probably be necessary to put them in italic throughout the article. But I'm interpreting them as foreign words but proper names which, according to the MOS, should not be in italic: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parentheses after the English name..."

What do you think?

Good point, we will leave it as it is.

Although the war imposed financial constraints and limited innovation, it was nevertheless the first major public building in Venice to be erected in a purely classical style – consider wikilinking classical style to Classical architecture.

Done

Procurators of Saint Mark:

This section is fine as it is, but if you want I think you could also shorten it a bit. Its main purpose in the article is to supply background information about why the buildings are called the way they are and who built them, no?

You are correct. But I also need to explain the financial aspect of the office since the shops and the apartments are sources of rental income. The section also helps to understand the importance of the position. Unfortunately, the main page, Procurators of Saint Mark, is woefully inadequate.

OK, I see your point. Let's keep it as it is.

The effective sale of the position also made it possible for young and ambitious nobles to quickly rise to high office and to consequently exert great influence, notably Antonio Cappello and Vettore Grimani. – would it be better to split this into two sentences, perhaps? “The effective sale of the position also made it possible for young and ambitious nobles to quickly rise to high office and to consequently exert great influence. For example, Antonio Cappello and Vettore Grimani did so.”

I broke it into two sentences but with different wording. Let me know if it works.

Works just fine.

Procuratie Vecchie:

In order to limit the loss of revenue to the procurators, tenets were evicted from the surviving sections of the old building and their apartments demolished as space was needed to continue – so they were demolished piecemeal, one part at the time? If so, perhaps add a “…their apartments piecemeal demolished as space was needed…”?

I see your point that it's not the clearest of sentences. The apartments were demolished one at a time, but not one piece at a time. I rewrote the sentence. Let me know if it's clearer.

Now it reads very easily - thanks!

That’s all for now – I’ll return as soon as I can. Again, thank you Venicescapes for your hard work! Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Part two

All right, here is the rest of my review. As you can see, there is not much to object to from my side:

Good morning.

And a good day to you! I hope everything is fine in Venice these days?

The coffeehouses are mentioned only in the lead, but not in the text, unless I missed something.

I wanted to mention the three historic coffeehouses since the pages exist. But you are correct that they are only mentioned in the lead along with the stores and workshops. The only way I can think of mentioning them in the main part of the article would be to develop a section to talk about the various types of shops that existed on the ground level over time. But given the structure of the article, it would be necessary to repeat this section for both the Procuratie Vecchie and the Procuratie Nuove. Do you have other ideas? Is it worth mentioning the coffeeshops at all?

I definitely think they are worth mentioning. Perhaps a short summary at the end of the section Procuratie Nuove - Architecture - Layout could do the trick? One or two sentences would be enough I think, basically repeating what's already in the lead? It doesn't have to be much but I think they deserve a mention.

I'll need to get to the library tomorrow afternoon.Venicescapes (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

But it later served as an almshouse for indigent women – remove “But”

Reworded. Let me know.

Great.

The building programme was strenuously advocated by wealthy and influential families within the aristocracy Would “was strongly advocated” be a simpler way to express the same thing?

Done

But following the death in 1595 of Scamozzi's chief supporter, procurator Marcantonio Barbaro Here too I think you can axe “But”.

Reworded. Let me know.

Looks fine.

In 1591, after the completion of the final five bays of the library by Vincenzo Scamozzi (1588), the offices were moved to the upper floor of the new building – for clarity, it could be good to add “the upper floor of the new library building”.

Done

Regards, Yakikaki (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again.Venicescapes (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the quick reply! Let me know what you think of the coffeehouses and we're almost done. Yakikaki (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I inserted the coffeehouses in the two "Later history" sections. Please let me know if the idea could work. For now, there are no sources. I'll have to go to the library tomorrow and then add references.Venicescapes (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks fine now, ready for GA status. (You can add the sources when you want, I think we did like this when I reviewed the article on the library also. I did a quick google search on the three coffeehouses and as far as I could see, the dates appear also in other places so it shouldn't be controversial.) Congratulations on another very good article, Venicescapes. You are truly a master of Venetian architecture. Yakikaki (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust and thank you also for your time and your recommendations for further polishing the article. Best wishes.Venicescapes (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

GA

CaroleHenson Hello. I hope that you are well. I wanted to let you know that the article on the Procuratie very quickly made it through the GA review. Thank you again for all of your time and effort in helping to get it ready. Kind regards.Venicescapes (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful! Congratulations, Venicescapes

Notes

Legend

TOC

GA nomination

A pre-GA review

General and intro

Procuratie Vecchie

Procuratie Nuove

Ridotti of the Procurators

Procuratie Nuovissime (Napoleonic Wing)

References and notes

GA criteria check

Observations by Venicescapes

Citation approach

Lead

Update

Status

GA Review

Part one

Part two

GA