Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2

Article stats[edit]

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

Authorship stats

KJP1 62.5%
Giano/Conte Giacomo/Giano II/GiacomoReturned 14.5%
Wetman 4.7%
SandyGeorgia 4.3%
Johnbod 2.7%

Top editor stats

KJP1 · 521 (53.4%)
Giano/Conte Giacomo/Giano II/GiacomoReturned · 209 (21.4%)
SandyGeorgia · 134 (13.7%)
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]

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]
Support Hog Farm _Talk 04:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, awesome work. Bishonen | tålk 07:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Support significant achievement. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, bravo!! – Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent work. Giano (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 07:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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
- This one can generally be safely ignored - it automatically pops up when sources of a certain age are used. Hog Farm _Talk 17:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 ...

~~Who is Paul Clerkin of https://www.archiseek.com/ wrt WP:SPS ?~~
Regarding the value of archiseek.com as a source, I found 'archiseek' gets 196 hits on Google Scholar, though the links it receives are not all from reliable sources. If you ask Google Scholar to look for 'archiseek JSTOR' you get 16 hits indicating that scholarly writers are using it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But per WP:SPS, we would need to establish something specific to the author, Paul Clerkin, I believe. I can't access all of those Jstor sources to determine what or whom they are citing from archiseek. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

~~What is the BookII, Chapter referring to here ?~~ "and for the first Monticello (1770), the Villa Cornaro at Piombino Dese (Book II, Chapter XIV)." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 2 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]

... built in 1758–62. See MOS:DATERANGE, should be 1758–1762, and check throughout. I would fix it myself, but is it intended to be "built between 1758 and 1762"? Not sure the current construct works ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Missing publisher at Nichols, Frederick Nichols (1984). Thomas Jefferson's Architectural Drawings. Boston, US: ????. ISBN 9780813903286.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why though; not seeing a contradiction. "Palladio's influence in North America[n 11] is evident almost from the beginning of architect-designed building there, though the Irish philosopher George Berkeley may have been America's pioneering Palladian. " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. KJP1 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per WP:MSH, we should not have "The": The Venetian and Palladian windows~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 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.