Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article stats

[edit]

FAC Nominator User:Bishonen; most original content written by Giano under various accounts

Authorship stats

  1. KJP1 62.5%
  2. Giano/Conte Giacomo/Giano II/GiacomoReturned 14.5%
  3. Wetman 4.7%
  4. SandyGeorgia 4.3%
  5. Johnbod 2.7%

Top editor stats

  1. KJP1 · 521 (53.4%)
  2. Giano/Conte Giacomo/Giano II/GiacomoReturned · 209 (21.4%)
  3. SandyGeorgia · 134 (13.7%)
  4. Ceoil · 34 (3.5%)

Stats excerpted as of 21 July 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Save Award nominations

[edit]

Please set up separate sections for each nomination.

Awarded August 2, 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FASA nomination KJP1

[edit]

I nominate User:KJP1 for a Featured Article Save Award for work to preserve the FA status of Palladian architecture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion KJP1

[edit]
  1. Support, working tirelessly but quickly to bring Palladian architecture in line with current standards in time for it to run on the mainpage on August 13, KJP1 is now responsible for almost two-thirds of the article content and should proudly display the bronze star associated with this article in userspace. Well done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Hog Farm Talk 04:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, awesome work. Bishonen | tålk 07:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Support significant achievement. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, bravo!! – Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Excellent work. Giano (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments from SandyGeorgia

[edit]

A brief look only:

  • There are sources listed that are unused as citations (I see mention above of moving to sfns, which would detect issues like this, and I would support a move to sfn citation formatting)
  • External links might benefit from pruning.
  • Is the 16-year-old Spoken Wikipedia link still useful, or should it be moved to article talk?
  • I checked one paragraph and found unverified text.
  • Checking only a very few citations, I found other failed verifications (perhaps I missed something?), suggesting there may be more and a source-to-text integrity check is needed on sources that are not available online. I see several statements that look like editorializing or original research (sources not available online) and could be flagged with "request quote" for checking, but will wait to see how others want to proceed.
  • Citations need attention; accessdates are needed on webpages, what is the style used on page nos (most are p.X but some use p. X).
  • You can install user:Evad37/duplinks-alt to check for duplicate wikilinks; this article has the most duplication I have ever encountered since I installed the script.
    Not so ... someone has fiddled with the duplinks tool, and it is duplicating the lead. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Work is still needed to bring this to current standards, some is minor and easily fixed, but source-to-text checking is significant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sandy, I doubt there is any original research. It is hard to imagine a less original, and more banal statement than: "At the forefront[failed verification] of the new school of design was the aristocratic "architect earl", Richard Boyle, 3rd Earl of Burlington", which you have tagged. Any book on the subject will have pages on him; I will add the relevant ones from:
  • Cruikshank, Dan, Georgian Buildings, 1985, Weidenfeld and Nicolson (with the National Trust and Irish Georgian Society), ISBN 0297786105 and
  • Summerson, John, Architecture in Britain, 1530-1830, 1991 (8th edn., revised), Penguin, Pelican history of art, ISBN 0140560033

-though probably not in the right format. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already addressed some; can these be checked or quotes provided ? (Will add to list as I read over time ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncited: The Baroque style, popular in continental Europe, was never truly to the English taste and was considered excessively flamboyant, Catholic and 'florid'. It was quickly superseded when, in the first quarter of the 18th century, four books were published ... : SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I will address citation formatting if a style is specified. As I said above, sfns might be useful here, and I see KJP1 also prefers to work with them. The dup links are more work than I want to take on, and I don't know which external links to prune. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy - this is really helpful. Re. the sourcing, I have all the offline sources I’ve added, and some but not all of those that were already there. So I can certainly go through any you highlight to add quotes, etc. in order to support verification. I could also check them - although that would be a bit like checking my own homework! I think the issue may be that many of the offline books won’t be easily available to most editors, although Johnbod will likely have some. Re. the citation formatting, page no.s etc, I can also check/revise these, but it will be the weekend before I can get to it in detail. On the issue of referencing, I would also personally favour a move to sfn and I think this would help address many of the issues you identify, including the above and the Sources containing items that aren’t used etc. I would be pleased to undertake this. But I am conscious that not all editors like it, including, I suspect, the editor who wrote much of the article initially. So I’d be reluctant to push it, unless we have a consensus here to do so. KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the sources I have to hand at User:Johnbod#Architecture. Largely different from those used, but covering similar ground, & especially strong on individual UK buildings (but weaker on actual Palladio buildings in Italy). I personally can't use sfn (or at least initiate a source with it), but .... Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'll actually get any pushback on sfns ... on other FARs, involving Bish/Giano, I don't recall seeing a problem ... could be wrong ... I'm not questioning your sourcing (hadn't checked who did what, and not aware of what was older sourcing vs. current) ... when I get around to a full read-through, I'll highlight here anything that worries me ... thanks for bringing this over the line! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If my memory serves, we did flip to sfn when Sicilian Baroque was at FAR. If people are content, I’m very happy to pick this up but it won’t be till the weekend, I’m afraid. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that I have seen the above ping to check this, but I have been very busy in real life the past few weeks. I see that Sandy has contributed comments so I don't want to add things until that is resolved. I'm going to continue following the improvements and if I have time I will contribute suggestions when everything above has been resolved. I am sorry that I have not been more actively involved the past few weeks but I look forward to reading this article again. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 Not to worry; KJP1 has things under control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy - where I'm at:

  • Whole article sfn'd, I think!
  • Page numbering standardised as p=x;
  • Books not used removed from Sources, I think!
  • Books used moved from Further reading to Sources;
  • ISBNs standardised on 13-digits;
  • Access-dates added to online citations;
  • External links pruned, as is Further reading section;
  • Some citations added where appropriate.

I'm struggling to get the duplinks tool running, so have asked Eva for advice. Can you do a readthrough when you have time and flag those areas where you have source-to-text concerns, and anything else you think needs attention. I can then go back through the books and look to sort them. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking in bits and pieces first ... will so a solid read-through later. The dup link tool appears to not work the first time you click it; sometimes you have to click more than once.
Who is Paul Clerkin of archiseek.com wrt WP:SPS ?
Same for Terence Dooley, as this is a blog. Need to establish credentials per WP:SPS. Also, who is "cshise" (need to establish no copyright violation) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I repeated these queries at bottom of FAR so they don't get lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a lot of unused sources in the source list, which show up with the harvref checker tool; do you have that installed? Or should I just delete those for you ?
Why is a snfref definition added after some sources? It's not needed unless there are duplicate sources for the same author/year, for example. Sample here. It's not a problem, as the citations render correctly, but if we want more people to use sfns, we should make it easy :)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only use them where there’s more than one author. I find, if you don’t, then they don’t display when you hover over them. But it could well be something I’m doing wrong. Perhaps User:Hog Farm can help? KJP1 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: - After this edit, clicking on a Guinness & Sadler source is taking me to the short citation (not the main one), but trying with Wundram & Pape which still has the sfnref present does the same behavior ... why multiple author sfns behave different than single author sfns is one of the few things I've never been able to figure out. The sfnrefs are putting the article in Category:CS1 maint: ref duplicates default which isn't an issue in itself, but means that it's more likely for a AWB drone or CitationBot to show up and remove them at some point. Hog Farm Talk 16:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm - I find, if you have them, if you do a first click, it shows you the short ref, and if you click on that, it shows you the full. If you don’t have them, it doesn’t. Why that should be, I’ve no clue! KJP1 (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a browser issue then, as doing that for Guinness & Sadler without the sfnref works for me. If it's causing problems for at least some editors/readers though, then I'd say to leave them in. Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, should you get the dupe link tool working, I am not an advocate of one-link-only per article, but there are still some that aren't needed. Judgement is needed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, it seems that someone may have fiddled with the duplinks tool; it is not working correctly. Checking now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, duplinks has a glitch, reported by several editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dup link tool is now fixed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are templates in use in the article for citations that have faulty (and contradictory) formatting. Have to go out, will detail later, reminder to self. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with sfn formatting, as I've pretty much only ever used sfns and can speak (most) of that language. Hog Farm Talk 15:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the snfs are all done (except for removing those not used, but I want to wait for KJP1 on those). There is some faulty/inconsistent citation formatting coming from the use of the canned templates, {{NHLE}} and {{CRHP}}; rather than deal with trying to get those fixed, maybe I'll just hand format all of those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy - that would be great, and if you could also zap out the books in the Sources that aren’t actually used. I thought I’d caught them all but obviously not. Then we can have a look at any text-source concerns, and I’ll have a look at those Sources you were concerned aren’t RS. KJP1 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will hand format the templated sources, and for now, will move the unused sources to Further reading. From there, I'll let you decide if they should be completely deleted, or kept as Further ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved unused sources, will work on other formatting issues later today ... gives you a chance to review what is now in Further reading ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. KJP1 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay and Hog Farm: do you know what is causing these errors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hidden categories: CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty
  • Pages using sfn with unknown parameters
Sooo easy, sfn, as people are always telling me! Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fixed, the p= parameter is case sensitive (although IMO it shouldn't be). Hog Farm Talk 17:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s from editing on the bloody iPad, which insists on capitalising, even when you don’t ask it to. Thanks for sorting it. KJP1 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know the particular pain of which you speak and empathize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining to look at: temporary break

With the exception of reviewing Further reading, I believe most of citation formatting cleanup is done now. Bringing down (repeating) two queries from above, so they don't get lost ...

Archiseek is a personal blog/labour of love, but it is both good and reputable. And it is one of the “go-to” sources for anyone researching Irish architecture. But it may not meet RS, so I’ve replaced the two citations that use it. KJP1 (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - by removal. KJP1 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for Terence Dooley, as this is a blog. Need to establish credentials per WP:SPS. Also, who is "cshise" (need to establish no copyright violation from the unknown schise of Terence Dooley) ?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dooley is a blog and is published on Wordpress which is a bit of a red flag. But it is also highly reputable. “cshise” is the Centre for the Study of Historic Irish Houses and Estates, which is sponsored by Maynooth University, so we’re okay on copyvio, I think. Worcester College, Oxford also publishes its Inigo Jones collection on Wordpress, [2] so they’re in good company! I could take it out, but I’d need to find another source for the 20th century decline of Irish houses. What do you think? KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - by removal. KJP1 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am just now catching up, and see that you removed it. I was more comfortable with the source once I understood what cshise referred to (d'oh!), and that is wasn't a random contributor copyvio! Struck anyway, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check throughout for similar to these? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No more of these. KJP1 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... can be definitively attributed to designs from I quattro libri dell'architettura are architect William Buckland's Hammond-Harwood House (1774) in Annapolis, Maryland and Thomas Jefferson's first Monticello.
    Sometimes date of a work is given in parens, sometimes not, but if that is done throughout, seems it should be on first occurrence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The design source for the Hammond-Harwood House (see above) is Villa Pisani, and for the first Monticello (1770), the Villa Cornaro at Piombino Dese (Book II, Chapter XIV).
    Avoid sending the reader to unknown places in the text (see above) ... instead, considering an internal link to the section referred to, or just remove the "See above"?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is referring to Palladio’s Four Books, i.e. it’s saying which of the book chapters the design is taken from. Does it need to be clearer? KJP1 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I eventually figured that out, by backtracking to another instance. I am turning in for the night now; if you aren't able to find a way to explain it briefly there, maybe I will think of something in the morning. Will finish striking and reviewing tomorrow ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a re-work of this section. It struck me that discussion of the Hammond-Harwood House and Monticello occured in two places - the second and third paragraphs and the seventh. I've therefore grouped it all together in the second para. I hope it reads more easily.KJP1 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. KJP1 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above is addressed; KJP1, is there more you want/intend to do, or are we ready for a full read-through? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I’ll stop fiddling, you have a read-through and flag anything that concerns re. sourcing/verifiability etc. I can then go back through the texts to look to sort any issues out. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hope to get to it later today, after breakfast and thorough caffeination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. User:Ceoil kindly went through the duplinks. Is the Eva tool working again to check they were all caught? KJP1 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It still has a glitch, so one has to ignore the top part, and move on down ... I don't see a duplink problem anymore, but I'm not a fan of the "one-link-only" practice, so if you see a place where terms are sufficiently separated from their first link, and feel the need to reinstate any, that would be OK I think ... I fear my initial over-reaction to the glitching script may have led Ceoil to remove more than he normally might ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I have an unexpected dinner guest on the way, so may not get to this today. Maybe Z1720 or Hog Farm will also be able to revisit in the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've got three other articles I'm committed to review so it'll probably be Wednesday before I can get to this. Hog Farm Talk 18:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get there sooner than that, so not to worry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Should perspective in the lead be linked to Perspective (graphical) ?
  • Would this work?
    From the 17th century Palladio's interpretation of this classical architecture was adapted as the style known as "Palladianism". It continued to develop until the end of the 18th century. -->
    In the 17th century and 18th centuries, Palladio's interpretation of this classical architecture developed into the style known as Palladianism. (Words as words needs italics.)
  • Can this be broken up ? Count Francesco Algarotti may have written to Lord Burlington from Berlin that he was recommending to Frederick the Great the adoption in Prussia of the architectural style Burlington had introduced in England, but Knobelsdorff's opera house on the Unter den Linden boulevard, based on Campbell's Wanstead House, had been constructed from 1741.
  • Would this work (avoid utilized ... employed ... and redundancy ) Reworked, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The style continued to be utilized in Europe throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, where it was frequently employed for public and municipal buildings. -->
    The style was frequently employed for public and municipal buildings in Europe throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.
  • How about ?
    By the latter half of the 19th century it was rivalled by the Gothic revival in the English-speaking world, when champions such as Augustus Pugin, remembering the origins of Palladianism in ancient temples, deemed it too pagan for Anglican and Anglo-Catholic worship. -->
    By the latter half of the 19th century the Gothic revival in the English-speaking world, and champions such as Augustus Pugin, remembered the origins of Palladianism in ancient temples and deemed it too pagan for Anglican and Anglo-Catholic worship.
    Was long, split, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy? As an architectural style it has continued to evolve; its pediments, symmetry and proportions are clearly evident in the design of many modern buildings today.

Struck, done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Continuing

Image captions:

Some standardization of format in image captions might provide more consistency ... see samples below ... differing punctuation and style used.

Have attempted to standardise. KJP1 (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this be more succinct? MOS:CAPTION. Claydon House is never mentioned in the text, so could some of the lengthy caption be moved to text?
    Claydon House in Buckinghamshire (begun 1757); here the Venetian window in the central bay is surrounded by a unifying blind arch. This house was intended to be one of two flanking wings to a vast Palladian house; the scheme was never completed and parts of what was have since been demolished.
    The Venetian windows of Claydon House in Buckinghamshire (begun 1757) in the central bay surrounded by a unifying blind arch
    Move this part to text and expand as needed? This house was intended to be one of two flanking wings to a vast Palladian house; the scheme was never completed and parts of what was have since been demolished.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the usage of dates be standardized throughout the article? Eg, change this to match the others (in parens)? Also, first English Palladian House might be moved to the body (and it is uncited).
    Inigo Jones was the designer of the Queen's House, Greenwich, begun in 1616, the first English Palladian house.
    Inigo Jones was the designer of the Queen's House, Greenwich (begun in 1616). Move first English to body, and cite it
Done. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the captions use colons, but this one switches to a dash (suggesting text built by different editors -- standardize)??
    The south front of Holkham Hall – The four flanking wings are elevated, in height and importance, almost to the status of the central block.
Done, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woburn Abbey, designed by Burlington's student Henry Flitcroft in 1746. Palladio's central temple is no longer free standing, the wings are now elevated to near equal importance, and the cattle sheds terminating Palladio's design are now clearly part of the façade.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speak rudimentary Italian, so am not lost, but another reader might enjoy more consistency. Sometimes we refer to the full book name, sometimes it is shortened to I quattro libri, and yet here, we use the English translation ... standardize for consistency to one or the other?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hammond-Harwood House was modeled after the Villa Pisani at Montagnana from The Four Books of Architecture by Andrea Palladio.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing with same, the remaining image captions sometimes include dates in text, and other times in parens.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not mentioned in text, hence, not cited: Henbury Hall, Cheshire, built in 1986 and modelled on the Villa Capra
Done. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this in the text, cited ... see new list at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2#Carryovers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palladio's architecture

  • This seems an odd way to introduce the section ... can we say what it is, before we say where it is? And this paragraph is dealing with two different subjects; unclear why this would be the topic sentence there, and it seems a whole 'nother para could be built around what is stated in the UNESCO source. I can't see where (may have missed it?) the citation says that all are in those locales. Based on what the source says, I can see the importance of Vicenza and the Veneto, but we don't explain most of what is in that source to establish the importance of the region. For the reader unfamiliar with Italy, it might help to add the word region after the Veneto. Possibly also add the "city of" Vicenza (most readers should recognize Venice as a city, but may not know the Veneto/Vicenza).
Done. KJP1 (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) All done, struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buildings entirely designed by Palladio are all in Venice and the Veneto, with an especially rich grouping of palazzi in Vicenza.[1Buildings entirely designed by Palladio are all in Venice and the Veneto, with an especially rich grouping of palazzi in Vicenza.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo? This is most simply be described as a recessed portico, or a ...
Done. KJP1 (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant? would be placed at second floor level over the top of a loggia below
Done. KJP1 (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Villa Godi has as its focal point a loggia rather than a portico, plus loggias terminating each end of the main building. --> ?? -->> Villa Godi's focal point is a loggia rather than a portico, with additional loggias terminating each end of the main building ??
    Did myself, please check ? [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The colon here leads the reader to expect the three elements will be laid out in the sentence after the colon:
    Palladian villas are usually built with three floors: a rusticated basement or ground floor, containing the service and minor rooms.
  • Italics on piano nobile as a foreign phrase, not a proper noun. Translation to English should be supplied in whatever format is standard for the article (Italian first, followed by English in parens, or whatever is used elsewhere)
  • Then the next (not a sentence) continues listing the three elements ... punctuation and grammatical issue here needs sorting.
    Above this, the piano nobile accessed through a portico reached by a flight of external steps, containing the principal reception and bedrooms, and above it is a low mezzanine floor with secondary bedrooms and accommodation.
Done the above re. the floors, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This passage assumes a lot of the reader: ratio of what to what, and interrelated how?
    The proportions of each room within the villa were calculated on simple mathematical ratios like 3:4 and 4:5, and the different rooms within the house were interrelated by these ratios.
  • Once those are better defined, then this might be more understandable ...
    Earlier architects had used these formulas for balancing a single symmetrical facade; however, Palladio's designs related to the whole, usually square, villa.
    See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2#Carryovers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were, however, in no way intended to be part of the main house, and it is the design and use of these wings that Palladio's followers in the 18th century adapted to become an integral part of the building. --> ?? --> Palladio did not intend for them to be part of the main house; his 18th-century followers adapted the design and use of these wings to become an integral part of the building.
Am hoping that the redrafting of this (thanks User:Ceoil) makes things more comprehensible. KJP1 (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there for now to see if I'm on the wrong track. Suggestions only, prose is not my strength, no need to strike and address each point (a summary suffices). I'll continue tomorrow, if any of this is helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have recast the Lead, and the first, Palladio's architecture, section in line with the above, very helpful, comments. Not got to the Image comments yet. The piece that needs a bit more thinking about is how to simply explain Palladio's use of mathematical ratios and harmonic proportion. Not easy concepts to summarise! KJP1 (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it ... if you find these sorts of comments helpful, let me know when I should continue ... lots to do elsewhere for now and don't want to overwhelm here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy - It’s very helpful to get another perspective. I’ve read it so many times while hunting out cites, I can overlook the obvious. Carry on with your read-through in your own time, and drop any comments/concerns here. I’ll then pick them up, although it may be the weekend as the working week’s busy just now. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can this sentence be split?
Yes - on re-reading, that was rather a monster sentence! KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the ratio issue, just specifying what dimensions the ratios refer to would help (width, length, height?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Carryover on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian and Palladian windows

I got lost in most of this:

  • Palladian, Serlian, or Venetian windows feature largely in Palladio's work and are almost a trademark of his early career. There are two different versions of the motif: properly the simpler one is called a Venetian window, and a more elaborate and specific one a Palladian window or "Palladian motif", although this distinction is not always observed.

So I read this source.

  • This is the first occurrence of the word Serlian. Only by reading the source did I eventually figure out that Serlian must refer to the architect Serlio (who I then found mentioned in the next paragraph, and then again in the fourth paragraph); can the flow/organization of the narrative be somehow adjusted to make the connection more understandable wherever the term is first used?
  • Why the almost a trademark? I couldn't find anything in the source that spoke to that.
    Still unclear on almost ... can this be re-phrased? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple= Venetian, more elaborate= Palladian, but what does the word specific refer to? I couldn't find anything in the source that spoke to this to help me understand this distinction.

So at a loss on the whole paragraph.

Spot on! KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything above this resolved, too much to strike, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant? This was in fact introduced ...
  • Heavily used .. where it is used ...redundant? heavily used by Palladio in the Basilica Palladiana in Vicenza,[22] where it is used
    Did this, pls check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First introduction to a person named Kent ... at this point we haven't been told who he is ??? Kent picked it up in his designs for the Houses of Parliament, and it appears in Kent's executed designs for the north front of Holkham Hall.
    Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this be disentangled?
    • Another example is Claydon House, in Buckinghamshire, the remaining fragment being one wing of what was intended to be one of two flanking wings to a vast Palladian house; the scheme was never completed and parts of what was built have since been demolished. -->
      • Another example is Claydon House, in Buckinghamshire; the remaining fragment is one wing of what was intended to be one of two flanking wings to a vast Palladian house. The scheme was never completed and parts of what was built have since been demolished.
        Did that,[6] pls check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done with that section, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy - am hoping that my tweaks and Ceoil's copyediting have simplified this section sufficiently. KJP1 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All set in this section, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Early Palladianism

  • The earliest neo-Palladians there were the exact contemporaries, both trained up as masons, Domenico Rossi (1657–1737)[n 4] and Andrea Tirali (1657–1737). I had to go forward than backward to understand what was meant with exact (revealed in their birth and death dates), and once my brain did that extra work, I wondered why we need the word exact at all, since its redundant to the dates. It just makes extra work for the reader. Or it might be less stumbly if the pieces were reorganized so the dates would be encountered first. Maybe --> ??
  • There is no contradiction here ... The most influential follower of Palladio anywhere, however, was the Englishman Inigo Jones, (Overuse of however and User:John/however)
    Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Art collector ... unclear why Collector is capitalized? with the 'Collector' Earl of Arundel,

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here, also. The 'Collector' Earl is a sort of title, e.g. [7]. I've put a footnote in. KJP1 (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


English Palladian architecture

  • I can't decipher who these two are from the surrounding text: The two living authors became the most fashionable and sought after architects of the era.
Done.KJP1 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonky commas or something missing? In 1729, he and William Kent, designed Chiswick House. ... drop Kent, already defined above ?
Done.KJP1 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent use of commas ... sometimes there is a comma after dates (see 1729 sample above) sometimes not ... resolve throughout? In 1734 Kent and Burlington designed one of England's finest examples of Palladian architecture with Holkham Hall in Norfolk. ... Does this need attribution? Finest example according to someone?
Done. (except the commas bit).KJP1 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation, attribution, or both ? Flitcroft's designs, while Palladian in nature, would not be recognised by Palladio himself. Everything from there, up to "are seen as of Palladian design" seems to be cited to an image only, unless I am not accessing the source correctly.
Will have a look at this.KJP1 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have now redrafted, and included cites to Pevsner (added as a Source). Hope this works. KJP1 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so, too (don't have access to books); struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this section, I'm not seeing anything verified by sources 70 or 72; it's as if I'm looking at the wrong source, not finding any of the content verified.
Sorry - not getting this. Have the Cite numbers changed? KJP1 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 yes some of the citations have changed relative to the version I linked above; I still can't verify all the text in that section. See the old link above, and look at citations 73 and 78 in this version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked, struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, source 72 mentions Calcutta,[8] which leads to this journal source (also here via Proquest) discussing Palladio in India. Has a search been done to be sure the article is comprehensive, as it now covers only English, Irish, North American and Prussian ... no mention of India, for example.

Done - by way of a footnote, to illustrate that its impact was beyond Europe/N America. KJP1 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I’ve expanded the section, rather than using a footnote, as you’re quite right - the wider international use of Palladian ideas should get a bit more coverage. It’s only a few examples however, anything like an exhaustive list would make for a very long article! KJP1 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Work on the sub-heading "Palladianism abroad"? Palladio's country was Italy, so by most definitions of abroad, all of the other sub-sections here would also be abroad, so how to better distinguish Prussia, India, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to elsewhere ... I'll continue with striking and reviewing mañana. Thx, KJP1, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy - A fairly clear day today, so will try and polish off anything outstanding from the above. If you could then review Ireland, North America, Elsewhere and Legacy, I'll look to address those this coming weekend (rest of the week is busy). Hopefully, that should still enable FAR clearance by August. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will try to finish up tomorrow; when I'm done, I'll ping in the other reviewers, in anticipation of your weekend finishing up. Enjoy the rest of your week! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good in this section, struck, remove temporary subhead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • This press release does not mention Jefferson or Palladio or Palladianism ... and I'm not sure it would be a great source even if it did. "Jefferson designed his civic buildings, such as The Rotunda,[117] in the Palladian style, echoing in his buildings for the new republic examples from the old.[118]" Maybe someone just copied in the wrong URL when building the citation template? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with Tavernor. 'Roman Republicanism as model for US' - Much better. KJP1 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy - I’m hoping we’re now up to date, but I may have missed something. If I have, you’ll pick it up when you do your strike through. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hope to get to this today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 sorry to trouble you again with a ping, but the Tavernor source is not listed in Sources, and the sfn is returning a harvref error. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, there looks to be a tangle wrt Tavernor. In this version, there are two HarvRef errors (a 1979 and a 1991 version of Tavernor with various spellings)
  • ^ Tavernor 1979, p. 77. Harv error: link from CITEREFTavernor1979 doesn't point to any citation.
  • ^ Tavenor 1991, p. 188. Harv error: link from CITEREFTavenor1991 doesn't point to any citation.
And there is a 1991 listed here. What is 1979? It appears the error there may be a typo (spelling last name)? Will fix what I can, but don't know what 1979 is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s no problem. I thought I’d fixed it. Giano was using the 1979 edition. Mine is the 1991. Thus, all the Tavernor’s need to be 1991. I can sort it, but it’ll not be tomorrow. Too much work! KJP1 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think there’s only the one and it’s done. KJP1 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck those, because this page is growing, I am taking followups to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carryovers

[edit]

Image captions

[edit]

Revisiting Image captions in this version:

Enfilades is the term for wings, containing suites of rooms. I’m not sure it needs a cite. KJP1 (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's fine. KJP1 (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite added. KJP1 (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Cite 143 - “is the 1980s progeny of Palladio’s Villa Rotunda”. KJP1 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, we need to standardize the name throughout the article ... sometimes we use Capra, sometimes Rotondo, and sometimes Villa Capra "La Rotonda" ... will look next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think that's fine. KJP1 (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palladio's architecture

[edit]
  • Per the discussion on the FAR page, all that is needed here to make this more clear is specification of what dimensions these proportions apply to:
    The proportions of each room within the villa were calculated on simple mathematical ratios like 3:4 and 4:5.
    --> ????? eg --> The proportions of each room within the villa were calculated on simple mathematical ratios like 3:4 width to length and 4:5 height to width --- or whatever it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I still can't understand this:
    The arrangement of the different rooms within the house, and the external façades, were determined by similar ratios.[15] Earlier architects had used these formulas for balancing a single symmetrical façade; however, Palladio's designs related to the entire structure.[13]
    How can rooms be arranged based on proportions? What to what? Re the entire structure, this presumably meant that (??) length to width (or something) were also round number proportions? And why did the exact round numbers matter to Paladio anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia - Sandy, I've added another cite, a lengthy Palladio quote, and quite a lengthy footnote. These try to explain what Palladio was wanting to achieve through his use of ratios/proportions, both within individual rooms/features, and between rooms to contribute to a harmonious whole. I hope it works, as I'm just not sure how else to cover it. With this, I think I'm done on all of your comments - for which many thanks - and those of User:Z1720. Let me know if there's anything still outstanding, when you have a chance to re-review. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I get it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Palladian_architecture/archive2&oldid=1101942884"