Talk:St Mark's Campanile/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 07:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Venicescapes. I'll start this review shortly. Hope to have some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, Thank you for your willingness to take this on.Venicescapes (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Will use this checklist as I go along. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just been looking at the many images and can confirm that they are all either PD or own work so the article meets WP:GACR#6. The images are excellent and really add something to the article. Will carry on with the lead and narrative now. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Before I delve too much into the narrative, I have some comments about the lead:

1. The last paragraph of the lead is a single sentence, which is deprecated. I would add it to the end of the first paragraph and use "current" or a similar word instead of "actual".

I moved this to the first paragraph and changed the wording.

2. The campanile reached its present height of 98.6 metres (323 ft) in 1514. The present building is a reconstruction completed in 1912. Are its dimensions exactly the same as those of the one that collapsed?

To the extent that we can know, yes.

I gave this some more thought and moved the height reference so that it refers to the current tower. That avoids any doubt.Venicescapes (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Much more linkage should be done in the lead. For example: Gabriel, watchtower (which is a single word), spire, Adriatic, Renaissance, Lion of St Mark and Justice.

Linked. I am hesitant to link Giorgio Spavento in the lead since it would result in a red link (rather glaring in the lead). Please let me know if it would nevertheless be advisable.

I could create a stub article for Spavento, but I wouldn't have much time now to develop it.Venicescapes (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

4. Consistency is needed re "St Mark's" because the lead and the infobox title use "Saint Mark's" and "St. Mark's". The usual form is "St Mark's" so that should apply throughout the article.

If possible, I'd prefer to spell out saint in all cases or at least when referencing the square. Please advise.

I standardized the references to the tower, the church, the saint himself, and the feast day, all of which now use St (no period). I left the references to the square as Saint Mark's Square. Let me know if those too should change.Venicescapes (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've taken the lead in isolation thus far so it is still to be compared with the narrative. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Venicescapes. I don't think Giorgio Spavento should be linked unless there's a chance of an article about him sometime soon. As you say, a redlink would stand out in the lead. If you prefer "Saint Mark's" then go with that. The thing is to be consistent, though I don't like "St. Mark's" at all because of the full stop in the middle of a name. Anyway, thank you for attending to this and I'll continue with the narrative. Hope to be back soon. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps follow the lead of the main St Mark's article? It mentions both names to start with, and then goes to St Mark's from there on, since that's the common name (or the article wouldn't be called St Mark's Campanile, it would be "Saint Mark's Campanile"). BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine for now, pending review of narrative, and happy with Saint Mark's Square. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Reputable sources

I noticed, in the backlog page discussion about the previous reviewer, a comment that they had not indicated any research into the many books referenced in the article, especially the Italian publications – Gattinoni, Sansovino, Zanetto, etc. I've been checking their authenticity and, as far as I can tell, all are authoritative works by reputable authors. I'm satisfied that the current citations (subject to any more being needed) are from reliable sources in compliance with WP:GACR#2b. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Historical background

Interesting and informative section. The footnotes are useful additions. Just one query which concerns the iron chain that could be pulled taut across the Grand Canal being installed at the height of San Gregorio. I assume San Gregorio here was the former church described in San Gregorio, Venice (if so, it should be linked). I don't understand how an iron chain at that height could impel invaders moving along or across the canal. Could you please revise the sentence to clarify? No Great Shaker (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I reworded this. I also found a handy link for harbour chain. I could add a note, if appropriate, about the great chain in Constantinople which had a similar function. See Galata Tower (old).Venicescapes (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Construction – Tower

• Change "recuperated" to "obtained". In modern usage, "recuperated" nearly always means a person's recovery from injury or illness.

• Change in correspondence to the fifth of the eight present windows to which corresponded with the fifth of the eight present windows.

One thing I like in this section, given the large number of doges through two and a half centuries, is your method of dating by each doge's term of office so that the reader always knows when a development was being done (or not). It's always best to provide a timespan rather than just say something like "the brief reign of Pietro Participazio". No Great Shaker (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Done, but with slightly different wording for the first correction.Venicescapes (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Domenico Selvo appears to be later referred to as "Selva". Which is correct? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Selvo. Thank you for spotting that.Venicescapes (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Construction – Belfry and spire

• Change "deliberated" to "decided".

• Change "execution" to "construction".

• As there is no enwiki article about Giorgio Spavento, it might be worth including a little bit of biographical info such as his dates (c.1440–1509) and that he was born and died in Venice itself.

Corrections made. I'll gather some information on Spavento and see if it's easier to insert it here or start a stub article.Venicescapes (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a stub for Giorgio Spavento. I should be able to go to the library in the next few days and get some more information.Venicescapes (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've reached the earthquake on 26 March 1511 and will have to halt for the time being. I hope all the comments above are useful. Back later. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Halting at the earthquake seems like a cliffhanger.Venicescapes (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ha, good one. I suppose, with my username, that an earthquake is appropriate! No Great Shaker (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The comments are all very helpful. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to suggest a recasting of the end of the second paragraph in this section as follows: from "the new belfry in Istrian stone." to "a new belfry made of Istrian stone." BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Done.Venicescapes (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've read the remainder of this section and it looks fine to me. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Progress

Hello, Venicescapes, sorry I haven't been active here for the last few days. Real life problems, I'm afraid. I haven't forgotten this review and I hope to back soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem.Venicescapes (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Loggetta

Starting this soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This section is fine, with a good photograph. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Later history

Who was it that said lightning never strikes twice in the same place? No Great Shaker (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's amazing how long it took to figure out the lightning rod.

I would change "subject to" → "susceptible to" but this is only a suggestion. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The section is fine. Very interesting and informative. I presume the Venetians were interested in the telescope for better observation of comings and goings at sea. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Bells

This seems to be quite comprehensive with a tremendous amount of detail about the functions and usages of each bell. The table provides an excellent summary as a visual aid. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Collapse and rebuilding

Again, very detailed and informative. The cat must have been shut inside or it would have sensed the impending danger and escaped, poor thing. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Elevator and Restoration work

One tiny tweak, already done. Interesting that the foundations still need so much maintenance and structural support. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Influence

A very useful list with some good images. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Passed

I've made additional comments above as I worked through the rest of the article today. There's no doubt that this is a very good article and I think you should take it to FAC if and when you are satisfied that there's little further information to be added. FAC might well be more demanding than this review has been but I think you have every chance of success there. If you do go to FAC, please let me know about it and I'll take part. I'm promoting the article to GA. A fine piece of work about an interesting historical subject. Well done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time and corrections. I would very much like to remain in contact. I actually just survived my first FA and may need time to recover. If you feel that there are areas of the campanile article that might still need work, please let me know.Venicescapes (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, if BlueMoonset has any further suggestions, please let me know as well.Venicescapes (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, I think the only remaining note I had was on the Elevator section, and the word change took care of it. (I might specify that it takes 30 seconds to travel between ground level and the belfry.) I was happy to see that the DYK nomination has already been reviewed and approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I specified this. Thank you for taking a look.Venicescapes (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)