Talk:Pietro Tacchi Venturi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 01:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in the article and will review shortly! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * In general, the prose is good, but much is missing. (See below)
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * lede
 * "Venturi himself had begun the process of reconciliation by convincing Mussolini to donate the library of the Palazzo Chigi to the #::Vatican." - what is the significance of this? - need some context, even in the lede.
 * In general the lede is inadequate; it doesn't summarize the article or give the main points per lead
 * "arguably" - not a good word - who is arguing? - some say, many say, recognized as an important founding figure? per words to watch
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * Too narrow in focus; doesn't give the overall picture for the general reader not familiar with the subject
 * B. Remains focused:
 * Too focused, but doesn't set the context for the narrow points presented
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Comments
 * Early life
 * What was the name of his magnum opus?
 * Fr.
 * "Venturi was admitted into the Pontifical Academy of Archaeology and other scientific bodies." - this seems to come out of nowhere. - what meaning does it have to his life?
 * These are just examples. In general the articles has great possibilities but it needs to be filled out. Please contact me if you have any questions about what I am saying here. I will complete the review later.
 * Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I eliminated the use of "arguably." I also expanded "Fr." to "Father." Unfortunately, I was unable to do anything regarding your other comments. As to the Chigi library donation, I think it is self-evident that giving a gift could be part of a process of reconciliation. Other than that, there is not much significance to the Chigi library. It was just something the Vatican wanted and couldn't afford. The latter detail is noted in the article, but in my opinion is not lead-worthy. Could you please be more specific about which things need to be in the lead? Could you also be more specific in terms of what you want for the "overall picture" and "context"? I think it is important for you to understand that the limited details available about Venturi. I included every detail I could find in published sources. I am not willing to engage in original research, but will include any sourced detail you can suggest. The source cited does not contain the name of the magnum opus. As to the meaning of the Pontifical Academy to his life, that seems to call for OR as well. I don't want to speculate beyond what the source says. Savidan 03:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Much of what I mean is that the article needs to set the context, just in a few words here and there about the political situation at the time, the relationship between Mussolini and the Catholic Church, etc. The general reader can't be expected to click on every link to understand what's happening. eg Benito Mussolini's importance is not explained, his role in Italy, nor what was the situation of Catholic Church at that time. 1922 was after WWI, what was going on then regarding Mussolini, the Church etc. re Chigi library donation? The general reader (like me) has no idea what it is or why it is important. Nothing like Chigi library is self evident, as I'd never heard of it. (Much of this info could come from other sources, e.g. articles on Mussolini on wiki might have info plus references on what was going on at this time re the Catholic Church, the importance of Chigi library, etc. Also, explain a little about Fascism and what impact it had on the Catholic Church. In other words, the article doesn't explain why what Tacchi Venturi did was important - just a few sentences to set the stage would do.) This is a very interesting article and would make a GA with a little work. Feel free to ask me questions. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply
 * I have added some more context along the lines you have suggested. I am hesitant to go beyond this (basically defining key terms, people, and events in the article in addition to wikilinking them). In particular, I am hesitant to add "context" from sources that do not mention Venturi at all. My concerns is that picking and choosing how to frame facts about Venturi by using such sources is definitionally original research. If you are not satisfied with my recent edits, please be specific about the context you would like to see (i.e., the facts you want included, not just the parts of the article where you think more is needed). Obviously, a reader who wishes to go from complete ignorance to a full and complete understanding of such topics as the Catholic Church, Italy, Fascism, Mussolini, and popes Pius XI and Pius XII will have to read more than this article. Savidan 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * Just one question (not critical) - what were the "Five Powers"? An excellent job of filling in the context! I found the article fascinating, as I knew nothing about all this! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very impressed with the job you have done, hence passing it without a "Five Powers" answer.


 * Reevaluation after fixes:


 * 1. Well written?:
 * 2. Factually accurate?:
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:
 * 4. Neutral point of view?:
 * 5. Article stability?:
 * 6. Images?:

Coongratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I have added the names of the Five Powers. Savidan 18:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)