Wikipedia:Peer review/Biblioteca Marciana/archive1

Biblioteca Marciana

I've listed this article for peer review because additional information has been added since it received Good Article status in order to prepare it for a Featured Article request.

The Biblioteca Marciana is one of Venice's foremost monuments with a long history, an imposing building, and lavish art. I would like the article to present and cover all of the relevant information in a clear and meaningful manner, both for casual and advanced readers, and would appreciate any guidance and/or suggestions to further improve the article and make it a thorough source for information about the library.

Thanks, Venicescapes (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Pleased to be sitting down with this at last.

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to learning more.Venicescapes (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:UE, should the article title not be the English name? I don't know - but that's a question likely to be asked at FAC.

I believe there was a discussion on this many years ago (now archived). We could reopen it if needed. At any rate, the library is almost universally known by its Italian name Marciana (occasionally it is translated as "of Saint Mark's"). The question is really whether to say Marciana Library or Biblioteca Marciana. The Laurentian Library and the Malatestiana Library are in English on Wikipedia. I'll do some research to see which is the most common form. Personally, I would opt for Marciana Library.

It should certainly be the Italian name, which your researches will show you is universally used by RS. The suggestion back in 2011, which was rightly rejected, was not to use any English form, but "Libreria Sansoviniana" for the building, as opposed to the collection. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I read the discussion about the name. The debate concerned whether one article should cover both the library as a structure and the library as an institution/collection or whether there should be two separate articles. It also centered on whether a single article should be entitled Biblioteca Marciana or Libreria Sansoviniana (which can only refer to the historical building – not the institution and not the collection). So, it was a different subject. The question of using the name in English was not discussed nor considered.

For now, I'm not seeing a clear consensus in published works:

Biblioteca Marciana	Garry Wills (historian/professor), Richard Goy (architectural historian)
Libreria Marciana	Charles Hope (art historian)
Libreria di san Marco	David Rosand (art historian/professor)
Marciana Library	Peter Humfrey (art historian/professor), Frederic Lane (historian/professor), Edward Muir (historian/professor), Dial Parrot (historian), Elena Svalduz (architectural historian/professor), Rebecca Williamson (architectual historian/professor), Elisabeth Crouzet-Pavan (architectual historian/professor), John Julius Norwich (historian), Holger Klein (art historian/professor), Deborah Howard (architectural historian/professor)
Library of Saint Mark (or Saint Mark's)	Deborah Howard (architectural historian/professor), Paul Davies (architectural historian/professor), Robert Tavernor (architectural historian/professor)
Library of san Marco	Frederick Hartt (architectual historian/professor), Wolfgang Lotz (architectual historian/professor), Claudia Rapp (historian/professor)

I'll do some more searching. But, again, since the Laurentian and Malatestiana are rendered in English on Wikipedia, it probably makes sense that the Marciana is as well.Venicescapes (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't really follow. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily follow, but consistency is at least an additional consideration. It's one of the five criteria WP outlines for article titles: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". I really don't have a strong personal opinion. But from the chart above some anglicized form seems to prevail in English-language reliable sources. I'll keep gathering as much information as possible in the event that the question is raised at FAC.Venicescapes (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The official name is the "Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana", as can be seen on their website, and no doubt their front door. The lead should certainly work that in somehow. They don't seem to offer an English translation. |Britannica uses Biblioteca Marciana, as do (with or without "Nazionale") most travel/tourist sites. It's clear to me this is the WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The Britannica link is actually for the Biblioteca Marciana in Florence (associated with the Church of Saint Mark's there). That raises an interesting question as to whether the term could also be ambiguous. I don't know.Venicescapes (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You are correct that an English version of the library's site does not yet exist. However, the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities translates the name into English (Library of Saint Mark). https://annoeuropeo2018.beniculturali.it/en/eventi/2018-anno-bessarioneo-2/

We could certainly make the name Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana more prominent, perhaps in the last paragraph of the lead where it talks about the current seat of the library. At present, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana is mentioned in note 1. It has been the official name of the institution only since 1876, and as such, it appears on the official site. It's a 'modern', administrative name. So it's probably appropriate to mention it. But it doesn't embrace the whole of the library's history. At the end of the first paragraph, it is specified that the common historical name was Libreria pubblica di san Marco. The collection itself was typically referred to as the Biblioteca nicena (in reference to Bessarion's title as bishop of Nicaea). In the early ninetenth century, Biblioteca, instead of Libreria, began to be used with more frequency. But again this seems to have referred exclusively to the collection which by that point had been moved to the Doge's Palace. The term Libreria vecchia (Old Library) was used instead to distinguish the original building from the collection. Libreria sansoviniana is the common name today for just the historical building. So many names each with a slightly different connotation.Venicescapes (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the information on the official name to the last paragraph of the lead.Venicescapes (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is this in British English? If so, we use programme rather than program when we're not talking about computer programs. Also, false titles should be avoided if you're using British English; I've made some changes in the lead, but haven't touched the rest of the article in that regard.

It was first written in American English but could be changed. Let me know. I think I understand about false titles. Thank you for correcting that.

It was started in 2006 by User:Wetman, who is certainly American, though I can't see any ENGVAR points in the first version. I may have introduced some points later, but it it should use AmEng. It's good to avoid false titles in all varieties imo; I think Wetman avoids them for example. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think that there is definitive reason to choose one variant of English spelling over another: it's not an American nor British library. But, overall, there is a prevalence of legitimate reasons to opt for the British variant. It is true that the article was begun by an American editor. But it is equally true that very little remains of that original article … about 1 percent of the present article. It was unsourced and contained errors. The two top editors, accounting for 96 percent, are European. Most of the English-language writings on the library are by British scholars. In the English-speaking world, the international expert, Deborah Howard, is British. The Marciana itself is a European library and uses the British variant when issuing documents and corresponding in English.Venicescapes (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think the article might be a little under-wikified. I've added some links in the lead (maybe more could be added) which might indicate what I'm getting at. There are a lot of terms relating to the Renaissance world and Venician politics in the background section that could be linked, for example. Compare.
• The first section has text squidged between two pictures - this isn't a great look, though I do like both pictures. Just something to think on.

I'll give it some more thought. I do think both pictures are needed. The appearance will of course depend on browser, screen size, etc.. I want to avoid a long row of pictures on the right which tend to push each other further along and increasingly out of alignment with the relative text.

Stopping there for now - really great read so far. More later. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Also, the hostelries and shops provided a steady flow of rental income to the procurators of Saint Mark de supra, the magistrate responsible for the public buildings around Saint Mark's Square. So there was the need to limit the disruption of the revenue by gradually relocating the activities as the building progressed and new space was required to continue. " Reference? You'll find any unreferenced material is challenged at FAC. Check that whole subsection!

I'll add more references.

• "cost of the damage which required 20 years" What does this mean? The damage set them back 20 years?

I clarified that it took him 20 years to pay the debt.

• "The Cavaletto was relocated in 1550.[39] This was followed by the demolition of the Luna." Wikilinks? I don't know what these are!

I clarified that these are hostelries

• "By 1552, at least the seven bays in correspondence to the reading room, had been completed." Again, I'm struggling with this. (What's a bay in this context? Wikilink?)

I'll work on clarifying terms.

• "Engineers were called to access the existing foundation" Access or assess? Either works, I suppose.

Corrected

• "the Vitruvian principles of Roman architecture" What does this mean?

I'll work on clarifying terms.

• What are "lintels"? Barrel vaults? Wikilinks would help! Capitals, collars... "none of which satisfied the Vitruvian dictum. Sansovino's solution was to lengthen the end of the frieze by superimposing a final pilaster on a wider pier, thus creating the space necessary for a perfect half metope" - Tricky!

I'll work on clarifying terms. For Sansovino's solution, the picture helps. I'm not sure if this could be explained differently, but I'll give it some more thought.

I ended up creating two graphics which should make it clearer.Venicescapes (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Sansovino further sensationalized the design by challenging the leading architects in Italy to resolve the vexing problem and then triumphantly revealing his own solution" This doesn't strike me as very neutral.

I'll make it clearer that this is his son's account.

More later this week. Again - this strikes me as a very well-written article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• "High-relief male allegories of generic Rivers (water flowing out of urns and cornucopias)" This could be a little more clearly explained, I think

I'll try to clarify the generic rivers.

• "Neptune (trident) and Aeolus (wind-filled sail)" I'm not quite clear on what is being said here: are the features in brackets things that the statues are carrying? If this is a standard practice in history of art (or some other relevant discipline), then please don't worry about it. Something similar is going on with the questionmarks. I am clear on what is being said, but is it the usual way to phrase this?

Yes, the information in brackets concerns the attributes. If it's confusing I can remove it. The question marks are fairly standard to indicate that the identification of the subject is not clear of universally accepted.

• "This effect serves to emphasize the verticality so as to counterbalance the long, horizontal succession of arcades." Reference?

Added reference

• "there is a correct and erudite use of the Doric and Ionic orders that recalls Roman prototypes with the intent of giving the building a sense of authenticity" Again, it feels like you're drifting away from the NPOV here.

Added reference

• Perhaps some of the paintings would make good illustrations for the "Interiors" section?

There were actually a few more images before the review for GA. However, the reviewer felt that they were repetitive since all of the roundels are present in the table. I did leave one duplicate (Actaeon and Diana) since it shows the grotesques. At any rate, I can add images if you feel it is appropriate.

Again, thank you for the time you're dedicating.Venicescapes (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Just to mention links again; I am seeing (for example) named churches and schools and such that I suspect are notable, but no wikilink is provided. If there's no article, that's fine; there's nothing wrong with redlinks. (I am pleased to see that today's featured article has a large number, for example.) Diogenes, for example, would be an easy link - and important, not least as there were multiple ancient philosophers called Diogenes.

I've added some more references and links. Some of them are indeed red. I may try to create at least a stub article. If there are other links that you feel are appropriate, please let me know.

• "Of the original decoration, only the ceiling remains with the illusionistic three-dimensional decoration by Cristoforo and Stefano De Rosa of Brescia (1559). Titian’s octagonal painting in the center (c.1560) has been alternatively identified as Wisdom, History, or The Soul. " Are the italics correct? Also, could you clearly provide a reference? That's definitely something that would be picked up on at FAC. And what is your reference for the paragraph beginning "The ceiling of the reading room"? I've no doubt that very good research has gone into this article, but it's important at FAC that the sourcing is crystal clear.

I added the references.

• "Note: The roundels by Andrea Schiavone are shown in their original positions. The inversion of roundels 19 and 20 occurred between 1819 and 1839, probably following structural work or restoration.[82]" Might this work better as an explanatory footnote?

It could be in a note. But there was a rationale. Many of the readers of the article are tourists who are actually at the Marciana and want to know more. For them, it will be glaring that two of the roundels are in different positions. So I felt it was necessary to immediately clarify the reason without sending them to the fine print.

• Reference for paragraph starting "In 1811" and following? This history section comes off as a little light. Also, the article seems sparse on details about the functions of the building today.

I'll need to do some more research. But the library is currently closed. It should reopen after the 18th. However, the rest of the history primarily involves the various donations that I listed further down. Not much else happened. Nevertheless, I can expand it some.

• "Among the treasures are unique scores of operas by Francesco Cavalli and sonatas by Domenico Scarlatti." treasures is non-neutral. Also, another example of a claim without a clear reference.

I removed 'treasures'. I'll need to find the source.

Sorry this is so bitty. It strikes me as a very beautifully written article, but the sourcing could be a bit clearer in places, and there could be a bit more information about the history of the building after it was opened and on the building's use today. I'll be back in time to look closely at the referencing (consistent formatting and the removal of anything questionable are definitely worth sorting before nomination) and look more closely into the replies above (sorry I've neglected them...). Josh Milburn (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again. For formatting, I do need to adjust some references. But I wanted to ask if there is any preference: MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard, other?Venicescapes (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No, see WP:CITEVAR. But, if there was a previous consistent or dominant style, that should be stuck with, absent consensus to change it. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I standardized references and notes according to MHRA.Venicescapes (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Josh Milburn Hello. I hope all is well. I expanded the "Later History" section. I really couldn't find a great deal to say. Even the chapters in Zorzi's book on the history of the library get rather short towards the end. When you have a moment, please let me know what else I should/could do to get the article ready. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Just acknowledging that I have seen this, and I hope to get back to the article soon! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience - I have (regrettably) had less time for Wikipedia of late. I think those expansions to the history section are really good, and serve as a fun little primer for the history of Venice, too!Some more comments, firmly with an eye on FAC:

• Always make your references clear, and (people will spot this at FAC) try not to end a paragraph without a clear reference (e.g., "The historical rooms are presently incorporated into the Correr Museum.")

I'll add some more notes. In some instances, it will not be easy. For example, to show that the historical rooms are truly a part of the Correr Museum, I'll have to track down the ministerial act that assigns them.

I rewrote that part and added a link to the ticket-information page of the Correr Museum.Venicescapes (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do still feel that you're a little light on the current situation; is it more museum than library, or still very much a working library? Is it open daily? Does it have lots of "normal" library books, or is it mostly older manuscripts (i.e., am I going to find Harry Potter there if I visit? Periodicals? Recent academic works?) I suspect what I'm really asking for is a last few sentences (or a paragraph) at the end of the later history section. (I appreciate the final paragraph in the lead, for example.)

I can explain what the library has and does today. Again, finding a source that states black-on-white that the library doesn't have Harry Potter (to use the same example) is going to be difficult. Can I simply refer to the on-line catalog?

I'm trying to get a copy of the Directory of Special Libraries and Information Centers. This, I hope, will give me something I can reference.Venicescapes (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course - I was just meaning I didn't quite get a feel for what it's like today. I know you'll be aiming for good scholarly sources, but I'm sure there will be some (e.g.) government websites with useful information about this sort of thing! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• All your references look appropriately scholarly, but be ready for questions and niggles relating to source formatting at FAC.

Do you see any problem with source formatting?

I didn't, but I didn't look at every reference. Questions about formatting aren't too hard, but they can be time consuming. Don't worry about it! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think somepeope may worry that the article is over illustrated. On a lot of screens, I suspect readers will find text squidged between images on the left and the right. This is something reviewers may pick up on.

I think that by its nature it has to be image-rich. Particularly in the architectural section, laymen and laywomen will find some things difficult to follow without images. If I put them all to the right, they will inevitably pile up and push themselves increasingly out of alignment with the relative text. I've looked at it on several monitors and personally find it elegant. Can we wait to see what reviewers say before removing images?

• File:Biblioteca Marciana-Ionic base comparison.jpg Are these your own sketches? What are they based upon? If this was scanned from a book (even a public domain book) be very clear about the source. Same with the other pillar images.

I specified the original source of the images. The diagrams were reworked by me in Corel Paint. Should I specify in what way the images were reworked and the program used?

Couldn't hurt: "This was scanned from x that's public domain for abc reason. It was coloured by the uploader using [software]." That sort of thing - just to help avoid any awkward questions at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's possible that reviewers will have some copyright questions about public domain work. For example (this is just an example): File:Biblioteca Marciana-Ionic base comparison.jpg. In what sense is this your work? Did you photograph/scan the original? We generally take faithful reproductions of 2d public domain works to be public domain (see Commons:COM:ART.)

I think this is the same as above. If not, please let me know.

My feeling is that this would have a good chance at FAC, providing source checks came back OK. That would mean three things: 1) No close paraphrasing of source material (i.e., no plagiarism worries); 2) What is claimed in the article is supported by the sources cited; 3) No major sources/"parts of the story" have been omitted. I just hope it piques a few people's interest at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your time. It sounds as if the FAC process could get gruelling.Venicescapes (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for piquing people's interest?Venicescapes (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

FAC is rewarding, but it can be fairly slow. I don't mean to make it sound unpleasant; I'm just trying to pick out the sort of things that come up at FAC! In terms of attracting interest; I'd recommend a short but punchy nomination statement, but the perhaps the best way to go would be to reach out to a few people and ask them to take a look here - perhaps to do something similar to me. That way, people might be ready to support as soon as the FAC starts. You could try reaching out to Ceoil (who has written a good bit about Renaissance art and is very experienced at FAC); Girth Summit (who has an interest in ecclesiastical architecture and has had recent success at FAC); Tim riley (who mostly writes on classical music, but may find this an interesting topic, and is very much an FAC regular); and Rcsprinter123 (who recently nominated a very interesting architecture article at FAC, which sadly just missed out on promotion). They may be able to recommend other people. It's generally a pretty friendly community at FAC when people are genuinely interested in writing about worthy topics and work well with reviewers (and, for reference, you've been more than fair with me - others might have gotten sick of waiting for me...). Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Josh Milburn I'm very grateful for your time, and I shall surely keep you posted on developments (should you want me to). I have two final questions. Do you by chance have addresses for any of the people you mentioned, and may I use your name as an introduction? Also, assuming that this particular review is finished, do I close it or do you?Venicescapes (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Josh Milburn I found the various addresses for the people you mentioned and hope to write in the next few days. May I mention your name as an introduction?Venicescapes (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course - sorry I didn't reply sooner! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Josh Milburn I added two final paragraphs to the Later history section which (I think) give the additional information you were looking for. I also added a sentence at the very end. Venicescapes (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Rcsprinter123

I'm here at Venicescapes's invitation, as recommended by JM above. I've given the article a bit of a copyedit, and would point out refs 168 and 187, which appear to be unformatted bare links, but with an access date. Otherwise, I believe this is in fairly good shape, though it might be problematic to have images on both the left and right of one paragraph, which occurs a few times through the article, though I don't know whether this is something that would be insisted on being changed at FAC. I'm also not particularly fond of the white boxes around each circular ceiling tile, which is unavoidable in jpg format but is visible against the light grey table background. If someone could edit those it would be a nice touch. Rcsprinter123 (rap) 19:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 Thank you very much for taking the time and for your edits. I redid the roundels with a transparent background, and ... yes ... they do look better. Thank you for the suggestion. You are correct that the two internet references are bare links. I could redo them with the cite template, but I don't think the result would look much different. They are links to pages on the Library's site. There are no titles, authors, or dates to reference. But please let me know if they should be presented with the cite template at any rate. The number of images may be an issue ... although I'm hoping not. JM also raised the question. I only see two alternatives. One could be to line all of them on the right. But that would create almost a continuous column of images which would probably look far worse. More importantly, they would begin to pile up and push each other further along and increasingly out of alignment with the relative text. The other possibility would be to simply eliminate images. But they're all relevant and, particularly in the architectural section, needed to illustrate points discussed in the text. I've looked at the page on a 15", 17" and 24" screen. It changes with each, but I think it's balanced. If you have other thoughts or solutions, please let me know. Again, thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I rewrote the two links to the library's website using the heading at the top of each page. Please let me know if this could be a solution.Venicescapes (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The roundels are certainly much better now for your edits. I think it is very much standard practice to use templates such as {{Cite web}} for anything which is available online. You can include the title, website name, and accessdate, and also the trans-title parameter for the English translation of the title. Now that I come to look, I see that all your book references are written plaintext as well. It is possible to use {{Sfn}} to generate a standard Harvard-style reference to each source with appropriate page numbers, etc. However, it may be that the format is fine as is; I don't know how picky FAC reviewers might be on this matter. Turning to images, I understand reluctance to remove relevant photographs, but accessiblity does have to be a consideration. I won't prescribe what you should do, but the guideline at MOS:SANDWICH does advise against this. Perhaps a bit more use of {{Multiple image}} would assist with this, by combining some into a smaller space. I definitely wouldn't say that everything should go in a long column on the right, because a mix of left and right is good, but having images facing each other across the text is not so desirable. Like I say, more experienced reviewers than me, who've dealt with this before can point you towards what the best solution is for this article, so maybe you don't need to make changes yet. I hope all of this was helpful. Rcsprinter123 (palaver) 16:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 It’s actually been very helpful. Thank you. The roundels look much better with the transparent background, and although the page is just a little slower to load, I think the aesthetic benefit is worth the few extra seconds. So it’s a good balance.

Thank you also for bringing my attention to the areas that might be of concern at FAC. Mainly, they would seem to be the reference style and the image placement. It might be best for me to address those concerns upfront and at least explain my rationale.

With regard to the reference style, I’ve used the MHRA (Modern Humanities Resource Association) style guide which is very similar to MLA, the main difference being that MHRA is a subscript system whereas MLA is technically a parenthetical system. Also, MHRA gives more information to the reader immediately in the reference. Both systems were specifically conceived for the humanities and use an author-title approach. This places the emphasis on the author’s expertise and the subject in order to help interpret sources in an historical context. Both systems also enable complex bibliographical information to be clearly organized, and they group all of the relevant publication information (place: editor, date) together (MHRA does so more clearly). This is important for textual criticism.

The {{Sfn}} template generates a name-date citation. The full reference is in the APA (American Psychological Association) format. The name-date system was developed for and is preferred by the sciences. It places the emphasis on the date of the publication in order to verify currency and relevancy. The formatting can be imprecise, and even inadequate, when dealing with complex bibliographical information, particularly XV and XVI century publications and manuscripts. With regard to the templates, many bibliographical details are not even contemplated. Parenthetical referencing gives a better summary than I can.

For the placement of images, I read the MOS on 'sandwiching' again, and I think that this is also a question of finding a balance between general guidelines and the needs of each specific article. In this case, the Biblioteca Marciana is … I think by necessity … an image-rich article. Particularly the architectural section relies on images. Many of these … diagrams, floor plans, and architectural details … were created ad hoc and correlated with the text in order to help readers understand better. In my opinion, it would be a shame … and even a disservice to readers … to have to remove those images, and I think the whole article would be impoverished.

I agree that two opposing full-colour images can squeeze and overpower the text in the middle (although this varies on the basis of browser and screen size). I took this into account and staggered the images wherever possible so as to limit the amount of text involved (keeping the image as near as possible to the relevant text). I believe, however, that the effect of two opposing images is far less pronounced whenever one of the images is a sketch or diagram which has a white background. In these instances, the page 'breathes' more. With this in mind, I tried to place sketches and diagrams opposite photos/paintings … although this was admittedly not possible in the section on the interiors where there are four full-colour images. But it would be difficult to eliminate any of these since there is in reality only one image for the staircase, for the vestibule, for the ceiling and for the walls of the reading room.

I welcome any ideas and/or suggestions.Venicescapes (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I did some research and think that I am on more solid ground. Specifically, I looked at the first 25 Featured Articles in the category of Art and Architecture. On my screen (17" with Crome browser), 13 out of 25 had some amount of text 'sandwiched' between two images. I'm a little more hopeful now.Venicescapes (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, you seem to me to know what you are talking about regarding the referencing and image placement. Those suggestions were just based on my first impressions when reviwing the article, but I am happy that neither will be terribly problematic as you move forward. Rcsprinter123 (indicate) 12:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's good that I'm prepared now to give an answer should the question be raised. Best wishes.Venicescapes (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Corrections from Ceoil

Ceoil Thank you for taking the time to read through the article. I hope it was interesting and enjoyable. Thank you also for your corrections. Overall they are excellent. There were only two places where I didn't feel the original idea was coming through. In the lead, I agree that the sentence regarding the historical name seemed dangling at the end of the paragraph; it was a good idea to move it up. But it seemed jumbled. So I clearly separated the English and Italian names. I also wanted to make it very clear that the name Biblioteca Marciana is not found in historical documents; it's usually (but not always) Libreria pubblica di San Marco. The other area I worked on some more concerns the foreign visitors. You are correct that my original wording was not clear. The idea is that many visitors came not to study but simply to marvel at the building and the collection. So, I rearranged that section and reworded some sentences. If there are still problems, please let me know. Also, please let me know if you feel the article is up to the standard of FAC or still needs work. Again, thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Venicescape...First up thanks for asking for a view, second revert at will - I trust you as expert, third this is such a beautifully written article, you have real talent. Ceoil (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

To your question, having read two thirds of it now, and noting the consistency of quality throughout, it is imo absolutely of FA standard. Ceoil (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)