Wikipedia:Featured article review/Palazzo Pitti/archive1


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

The article was kept 17:21, 13 January 2008.

Review commentary

 * ''Notifications left at WikiProject Italy, WikiProject Architecture, Giano_II

No longer meets FA criteria. The total number of inline references is 1. It wouldn't even come close to the GA criteria now. (Caniago 14:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC))
 * I have de-featured it. I have all the reference books, no-one else will have them and I don't have the time or the inclination to fully cite it. so it can be de-featured. That will save you all the trouble of pontificating about it and give you all the time to go and write FAs yourselves. Giano 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Understandably so. There are so many uncited controversial statements - who says it is in Florence? who says it is a mainly Renaissance palace? who says it on the south bank of the Arno, or near the Ponte Vecchio? Delist this engaging and beautiful article as quickly as possible. -- !! ?? 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to worry !! - if they feel my efforts are not even GA standard, then it is bettre to put it back to how it was before I ruined it. Giano 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't about trying to delist the article. This is above trying to improve it, in this case by adding inline citations where appropriate. If Giano is unwilling, we can wait to see if someone else has the capability and will. No one is saying you haven't improved the article, Giano.  Pagra shtak  16:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is no longer a FA as far as I am concerned, if it is nowhere near GA either then the work involved is too great. If the intention of those nominating the page is merely to cite the obvious facts, then they will find all the reference books used in any major lending library. In should not take them more than a couple of weeks to read the lot. I can assure you nothing was made up. -- Giano (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * [after an edit conflict] Whether plastering footnotes all over this article would "improve" it or not is a matter of taste. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the claims made in this article are incorrect in any material respect, or that the interested reader could not check (and also find out more) in the sources already referred to (if they could find them)? -- !! ?? 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not a matter of taste at all, referencing is a fundamental part of the criteria for promoting articles to GA and FA standards. Read Featured article criteria and What is a good article?. (-- Caniago (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Thank you for your suggestion, although I do not see how What is a good article? is relevant to the discussion here.


 * (i) The article already has references which are entirely adequate. You are asking for footnotes (aka inline citations).  (ii) "... where appropriate" certainly strikes me as a matter of taste.  Or are you suggesting an objective test of "appropriate"ness?  One footnote per fact?  Per sentence?  Per paragraph? -- !! ?? 17:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well this is obviously a "very bad article" and I have better things to do with my time than cite non-contracersial facts to meet a criteria of one footnote to every 10 words of text. As I said all the facts are in the books, it won't take you too long. Giano (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems a bit pointy. WIAFA doesn't require any particular citation density; it requires citations "where appropriate". Which specific things need citing? A few opinion-like statements perhaps, such as it being "more spendid" than ever, or it having a "powerful atmosphere". What else? Gimmetrow 21:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While citing the opinion statements, it would also be a good idea to clean up the weasel words such as "It is claimed" and "It has been said". --Allen3 talk 15:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a worthy article. I don't see where all of these controversial statements are that require specific references beyond the list at the bottom—it doesn't seem to be that type of subject. Having said that, inline citations might be considered for one or two of the more specific statements, and would take just five or ten minutes to insert. Tony   (talk)  00:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the reffs are all listed. So should be easy for an Italian speaker. Giano (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What a lovely article, well done Giano. I suggest the nominator has a look at WP:WHEN when he gets back from his wikibreak (presumably he's spending time in the library...) --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have looked. What's your point? Show me an article which has passed FA review, or even GA review, in the past 6 months which has almost no inline citation. Funny how acquaintances of Giano, including some who are "no longer active on Wikipedia", show up when his pet article is in need of saving. (Caniago (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)) BTW: good guess, I have just come back from the library. (Caniago (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Not my pet article at all - I keep saying delist it, how many more times, add some cites wherever you feel they are needed or get rid of it. Giano (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You should tell your Wikipedia allies to back off then, they haven't yet got the message. (Caniago (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Please do not atack those who happen not to agree with you. I have no need for allies, it is just that obvious facts and logic, are just that - Obvious. Giano (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than hem and haw about it, let's see if we can get something done. Caniago, could you please identify the sentences or claims that you believe are in the greatest need of citation?  Pagra shtak  15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added some citation needed tags for statements which seem like opinion or claims which could be disputed. (Caniago (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC))
 * That's essentially asking for a cite every sentence. "The early history of the Palazzo Pitti is a mixture of fact and myth."? Gimmetrow 22:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think Caniago missed a sentence or two in his carpet-bombing of fact templates. I could help him out and tag the few sentences he missed, except that would be a little WP:POINTy.  But he has identified lots of controversial statements and unsupported opinions, such as the resemblance of Palazzo's facade to a Roman aqueduct - three rows of rusticated arches? who could ever think such a thing. -- !! ?? 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just how many FA's have you worked on !!? Here's (Indonesia) what one looks like for you armchair experts. Please contribute to improving this article to FA standard or keep the sniping to yourself. (Caniago (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Sorted all uncited phrases removed. Giano (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your actions don't match your rhetoric about not being concerned about whether the article is defeatured. (Caniago (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

*Yawns and rubs eyes* OK, option 1 is simply defeaturing this now because Giano has agreed to have it defeatured. That would save a month of shouting. (I would ask you not do it yourself Giano, because it just screws up the templating for people like Gimme who look after article history.) Option 2 is grandfathering it in. It's something I've been thinking about. If a) it meets all other criteria besides 1c and b) the original author of it is clearly active and vouches for the info, then it retains FA status. If Giano leaves Wikipedia it would become a candidate for defeaturing as no one is vouching for the info any longer. All of this would require wider discussion, however. The principal argument against is that it would be unfair to people like Nichalp and Mav who have older FAs and have done the work meeting current expectations and/or have had articles lose FA status. Marskell (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we avoid the drama? For the sake of reference, these edits show Caniago's addition of fact tags. I have restored the article to the version immediately before, rather than lose so much of the prose. Even if the article is defeatured, it doesn't need to be defaced. Worst case should be a coherent text with a refimprove somewhere. Gimmetrow 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So far I have removed the phrases you feel need cites, and that apparently is not right. I have de-featured the page myself and that is not right either. So why does not one of those concerned not  pop out get the books and cite them themself. I, and others, clearly feel they are accepted and noncontroversial facts that don't need citing. I do this to unreffed pages all the time if I have concerns  -  Why can't those who are so bothered do the same? Giano (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're confusing roles, reviewer does not necessarily equal author or fixer. Maybe someone will help out, but then again you already have the sources, so it's probably easiest for you to do the work. As for not needing inline citations, I say bollocks. Take a look through some of the opinionated claims I marked: "Palazzo Pitti is more splendid and better maintained than at any time in its history", "the palazzo still impresses visitors with the splendours of Florence", "it is Fancelli that is generally credited", "the palazzo does not have the overpowering and commanding presence". The list goes on, and some of this article verges on sounding like a tourist brochure. Someone has already pointed out it contains weasel words. Its a shame that some people here are so resistive to criticism. (Caniago (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
 * "Bollocks"....I'd stay another year at the finishing school if I were you. I keep saying de-list it, so where is the problem? You are obviously not interested in improving it yourself, I don't think it needs the cites - so delist it. If you are correct why stop there why not delete it as well. Giano (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your position is quite confusing. First you say you want to avoid pontification by delisting it, but here you are continuing to stir up arguments. Shame you need to resort to personal insults rather than make any serious defense of the article and the criticisms that have been made. (Caniago (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Not personal insults at all just some advice to someone who argues using your vocabulary. My view remains quite unaltered. You started this, just ex[end some effort and finish it. 15:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to understand what "reviewer" means. Please stop the pontification. (Caniago (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
 * I feel like I should apologize. When I asked Caniago to identify phrases that needed citation the most, I didn't intend for him to overload the article with Fact templates. Why are both sides so unwilling to meet common ground here? Yes, large portions of this article can be supported by a book without the need for inline citations, but yes, there are some sentences that when cited inline would improve the article. Why can't Caniago list his (her?) top ten citation concerns here, then Giano can cite them, (hopefully that shouldn't be too time-consuming, yes?) and then we've met halfway, and can move on.  Pagra shtak  16:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already spent enough time going though and adding where I think it needs citation, based upon your invitation. On average there was probably 1-2 citation needed tags per paragraph, with substantially more in the last section, which in my opinion needs some rewriting to present the facts in a NPOV fashion. I don't see that as particularly excessive compared to other FA articles. If the facts within a paragraph are sourced from the same book, a single citation for the paragraph would suffice. (Caniago (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
 * For the hundredth time, if you want them cited, you know the names of the books Caniago, then please get on with it. I certainly have not asked you to review the page, you chose to do it, so now solve it. Giano (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked for samples of citations needed (starting at the bottom as I usually do), but the first example I found revealed other issues. Regarding this sentence: On the surface, it looks like an example of hard data that requires citation (particularly since the number can change over time). But I question why this number is in the article at all, per 4. ... staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail ... It is the Polo Museale Fiorentino that has responsibility for the 250,000 works of art and twenty museums including the Uffizi. How is this extra information about the Polo Museale tightly focused on the topic of Palazzo Pitti? If the relevance can't be established, the data could be removed. Can a stub be created for Polo Museale Fiorentino with this data and info moved to that article?
 * Control of the palazzo, today transformed from royal palace to museum, is in the hands of the Italian state through the "Polo Museale Fiorentino", an institution which administers twenty museums, including the Uffizi Gallery, and has ultimate responsibility for 250,000 catalogued works of art.

By the way, Polo Museale Fiorentino should be italized I believe, as it is non-English.

Also, per WP:MOSNUM, twenty but 250,000.

Right below that, we also find: with no citation or as of date. I didn't go farther. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Florence receives over five million visitors each year, ...
 * oops, also I was going to suggest that the references need to be formatted, but it appears that http://www.arca.net/db/musei/pitti.htm is a commercial (non-reliable) source, and would better be removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is something stopping you Sandy? Giano (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep featured; I don't think anyone's identified a material problem with the article, and it reads very nicely. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove. Lacks appropriate inline citations, has weasel word problems, and needs to be brought into compliance with Manual of Style. --Allen3 talk 10:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Retain. Clear and well-written; largely from a single, well-indicated, source. As usual, the points from the so-called Manual of Style do not affect the clarity or readability of the article, and should be resolutely ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove Inline citations are appropriate for opinions (e.g. "almost forbidding"), quotes (e.g. "said by no less a person than Vasari"), and counter-intuitive claims (e.g. "Brunelleschi was the palazzo's architect" (even though he was dead)). Note that these are illustrative examples plucked from the first paragraph only. I appreciate that they may not be the best or only examples. Giano has indicated, as he is quite at liberty to do, that he will not insert them. I very much doubt, for the reasons that he has already indicated, that anyone else will do so. DrKiernan (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest people take the time to read that paragraph rather than the distorted version by DrKiernan above. Or is the date of Brunelleschi's death in dispute? Giano (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As you appear to have misread both my comment and my intent, I have revealed the hidden comment. DrKiernan (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Gosh! "Hey presto" it is magic! Giano (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove per DrKiernan's reasoning. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold-the-****-phone - amazingly I think I actually have the Georgina Mason book at home on my bookshelf which I will check later tonight. I think this is salvageable and thus ask for a seven day stay of FA-execution period to do some reffing and tidying. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Phone held. Marskell (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To update, the book has only one page on Palazzo Pitti so I'll look in the Uni library this week for others. I agree the writing was a bit weaselly and will do more. This is not far off being a keep and should be readily do-able in a few days. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bless you. Marskell (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (aargh, holy water...it burns, it burns.....)....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am happy - I tweaked the prose a bit and there are inline refs strategically placed through the document now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cas. I added a few weblinks and dug up a short journal paper on the Costume galleries. The referencing drops off somewhat toward the end but is fine, in general. I'll wait for a couple of more comments. Marskell (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good; I am otherwise entertained elsewhere (and just having the time of my life), so I haven't had time for a thorough re-read, but on a quick glance, everything looks great. Pass the holy water for Cas, and relieved to see a Giano piece in Keep territory.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:39, 12 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.