Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa del Giocondo


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:09, 31 January 2008.

Lisa del Giocondo


Biographies of Lisa are few are far between though shelf-miles or kilometres may have been written about Mona Lisa. 16k is here now—and yes it is scary to nominate an article this short—steering clear of borrowing too much from the most-cited sources, and steering clear of the painting. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support CommentI like the article, but some of the writing reads rather awkwardly. For instance, "Less so perhaps but Francesco is thought to have benefited as well because Gherardini is an 'old name." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edits and reading. Hope the strike is the way to go. A number of things have been corrected. -Susanlesch (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not complaining, but others might. It's best to let the editor strike his/her own comments when (s)he's satisfied. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Woops, sorry about that. Thanks for the correction. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not a really strong oppose, but I think it's rather short for a FA and it is definitely a topic that can be improved upon, for example the "Later Life" section. It is very well sourced but the writing certainly could use improvement, the last paragraph of the lead is mildly confusing and the prose in general could use some tuning up. With some minor improvements, I think it will eventually make it. --The Dominator (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair enough. Later life (for which, so far, I found almost nothing trustworthy online including scanned books) has been rolled into one biographical section rather than two sections. Added a paragraph about the painting: not about aethetics or legacy but about Lisa's physical part in it. Also added a paragraph about her parents which ought to have and missed that ibeen there before. If those additions would change your vote, I could request help with writing at the league of copyeditors. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A number of copyedits are done (some in strike markup above), and images and text have been added. -Susanlesch (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, deals with a very important piece of arts history; the subject of the most famous painting. WP is in dire need to these kinds of (featured) articles. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Prose seems to have improved, article is well referenced and contains a good amount of information, still possibly a bit short for FA, but it has my support.--The Dominator (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - final paragraph of lead seems a bit messy, unclear whether the painting or person is being refered to at times. The final sentence of the paragraph could be made to stand on its own a bit more. Guest9999 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Support - concern dealt with. Guest9999 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and my fault for muddling this last night. The lead has been reworked. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Query: why the unrelated image of Florence today?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, SandyGeorgia. Thanks for taking a look. GA review requested more images. Florence is the only image so far that is unrelated to the Mona Lisa artwork. While a picture a kilometre (.5 miles or so) away of a place she and Francesco lived would be an improvement, for now I like that it relates to Lisa and her families' lives and the "real world". Do you or anyone else here think it should come out? P.S. Her childhood home and her father's second home were both maybe a couple blocks, to either side of this vicinity on the Arno. I will try tweaking the caption. If you or others see this photo as extraneous that is AOK. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's completely extraneous; would like to hear from others, but the article is illustrated just fine without it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Picture removed. Maybe a tourist at the Ponte Vecchio will get a closer shot someday. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lucky break. The commons has permissions for professional maps courtesy the city of Florence "Azienda di Promozione Turistica". A cropped and marked map has been added. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose —Reluctant neutral. The prose is very ordinary, but is required to be of "professional" standard. For example:
 * "The family had income from nearby farmland and lived in Florence near Santa Trinita and also had a small country home about 20 miles (32 km) south of the city, in St. Donato in the village of Poggio." Rather long and winding; redundant "also"; MOS breach in use of US units as main units; When their city home was damaged the family moved to rented space near Santo Spirito." There's a serious shortage of commas throughout the article. Date of death: "15 July 1542 or c. 1551, Florence, Italy"—bit odd.
 * Poor punctuation throughout, e.g., "They had five children, Piero, Camilla, Andrea, Giocondo and Marietta" (colon required).
 * Gawky sentences, like "When he commissioned Leonardo with Mona Lisa and later Domenico Puligo with a painting of Saint Francis of Assisi, Francesco was a patron like his peers. Mona Lisa was painted beginning in 1503, following Andrea's birth and when the family was celebrating owning its own home."

The whole article needs a lot of copy-editing. Big job. Tony  (talk)  10:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Requests/Lisa_del_Giocondo. Thanks for your comments. -Susanlesch (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Two copyedit passes done. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony was right. I nominated this under the influence of a cold. Thanks for catching that—not the cold but that this article needed work. The whole article has been copyedited, corrected by another editor (thank you!) and checked by a third reader. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did a bit of copyediting, and I have a couple remaining small issues with the prose:
 * "Lisa's stepmother Caterina di Mariotto Rucellai and Francesco's first wife, both members of the prominent Rucellai family, were sisters." Why do we care about this? In my view, this is really unnecessary detail about a husband's mother and former wife. (Lisa's stepmother = Francesco's mother, obviously)
 * Any Rucellai and Medici mentions are important to show Giocondos had connections. BTW that would be mother-in-law.  -Susanlesch (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "The family's burial site ... gained a painting through the efforts of Francesco's son Bartolommeo." Very vague. Did he buy a painting? Commission a painting? Steal a painting? Paint a painting?
 * Fixed. The name of the artist has been added and that he painted a fresco. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph that starts with "Leonardo had no income during the spring of 1503..." is kind of rambling. I think it could be improved by tightening it up to show the bits that are most relevant to Lisa. What impact did Leonardo's other commission have on this painting? It's unclear.
 * Yes, good comment. No one can say this with certainty but I will try to lean that way. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "By the end of the 20th century, the painting—though not Lisa—was a global icon" Is the "though not Lisa" necessary?
 * Yes, probably. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done (removed this after all). -Susanlesch (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's all for now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Calliopejen1, thank you so much for your review, edits and comments! Very helpful and I think they led to improvements. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've withdrawn the oppose, but I'm still not thrilled with the prose; and I wonder why a source of nearly 100 pages has no page number in the reference for this specific claim: "was a global icon that had been used in over 300 other paintings and in 2,000 advertisements.[2]" Are there similar instances of this? Tony   (talk)  13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This paper is 18 pages and is cited four times. The gist of all four, including the exact text you are asking about: "over 300 paintings and 2,000 advertisements", can be read for free from the abstract. I added "Abstract" under pages in the cite template. Just click the link. By the way, this source is used more in the Mona Lisa article. But here, the author is no doubt the best choice at this time in the area of iconization and fame. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added page numbers after all. Thanks for the suggestion. -Susanlesch (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator, and bowing out because I would need to stand aside for weeks now to see this with fresh eyes. I saw four supports besides me. Thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.