Talk:Gesuati

Article re-written
I added a picture to this article and then saw that it was lacking in substance and seemed to need re-writing. This I have now tried to do. I hope the revision will be acceptable. I have included external links to a site which has excellent photographs of the paintings in the church which are not in Wikipedia Commons. I have placed these in the body of the article (contrary to th general rule) because it seems important that they should be close to the description in the article.

I hope that the article (currently start-class) can now be re-assessed but do not know if I can or should do anything about this.

Waysider1925 (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made several additions and alterations and think that the article is now almost complete. It could do with some more good photographs of the works of art, particularly the sculptures Waysider1925 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on deletions
Attilios has made changes with some intemperate comments which ignore the editorial obligation to be courteous. I do not accept many of his comments and will try to explain why.

He calls it a "very messy article", but his revisions are mostly deletions. The resulting article does not seem any less 'messy', if that was a valid criticism, but is certainly less informative. Headings were altered for no apparent reason except his personal preference.

Anything in the nature of a comment was deleted, although these were not editorial comments but taken from respected works by important art critics. They were not an editorial POV, but informed the reader of the importance of individual works of art in the church and why they are thought important. This is a proper function of an encyclopaedia and information which many readers will be glad to have. They are not anonymous comments: citations are given.

He deletes Hugh Honour's comments on Morlaiter saying that such comments are "not relevant here". I cannot agree. The opinion of a leading art historian about the man who was responsible for almost all the sculpture in the church must be important and interesting to anyone wishing to know about the church, especially when the name is not otherwise particularly well known.

He deleted Michael Leveys comment on Piazzetta's painting with the apparently sarcastic comment "(such POV enthusiasm is surprising for such minor and irrelevant works. A "triumph"? Is that from Michelangelo perhaps?)". The painting is generally accepted by art critics as one of Piazzetta's greatest works and Piazzetta is one of the most important Venetian painters of the 18th century. The fact that Attilios apparently does not know this shows how important it is that the article should make it clear. Michael Levey was Director of the National Gallery in London and an acknowledged authority on 18th century art in Venice. It is certainly not a 'minor' work. And what does irrelevant mean in this context?- certainly not irrelevant to a description of the church, nor to Venetian painting.

He evidently thought the first picture was too large. That is a matter of taste, but I think that it was reduced too much and he made it the same size as the second picture, which is very much inferior as a photo and had only been retained because it shows the old church as well as the new one.

He removed the picture of the facade as being too like the opening picture, but it does show the facade on a larger scale and has the merit of being placed opposite the paragraph on the facade. It is a convenience for the reader to have the picture in front of him while he is reading theparagraph without having to move up and down all the time.

He removed all links to reproductions of the paintings in the church which are not illustrated in the article (because a good non-copyright picture could not be found), saying that these links were 'stupid'. I cannot understand why he thinks this. Any interested reader will want to see the pictures which are being described and many will find it a convenience to be directed to a good reproduction elsewhere, without having to go searching for it and perhaps failing to find it.

He has changed descriptions of some pictures to "Titles" in italics as if such paintings were given titles.

In the list of books I had added some comments on a book in Italian, partly to show why it was included, when Wikipedia policy is for English works as a general rule, and also to tell readers, whose Italian might be less than fluent, that it is important enough to be worth the trouble of translating. He said: "such specs sound very little encyclopedical". I am sorry but I think that such comments are worthwhile and in no way out of place in Wikipedia; many of the most useful bibliographies include comments on works listed.

I intend to revert many of his alterations because I think they were unjustified. I will try to keep those I consider helpful.

Waysider1925 (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo Selection
The photo of the interior that was just put back into this article is so inferior in quality to the one that was there I was actually taken aback. What is there now has an extreme amount of colour noise, softness and motion blur that it should be deemed unacceptable for an encyclopaedic article. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please consider that photography inside the church is only allowed without flash and without a tripod --Moroderen (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)