Jump to content

Talk:Tiepolo conspiracy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiepolo conspiracy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 17:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 03:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

Image review

  • File:Vecia del Morter.jpg: I am not sure that its publication is fully in line with the special Italian copyright laws, but I am not an expert of the issue. Could you clarify it? Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it is an anonymous sculpture dating to 1841, so the work itself is definitely in the public domain. The only obstacle I can think of is freedom of panorama, which in theory doesn't exist in Italy and is supposed to be very restrictive for cultural monuments. However, a literal application of the relevant law would make any and all photos of anything of 'cultural importance' illegal in Italy. We have plenty of featured articles in WP, including the current main article, that feature photos of old monuments, so I suppose it is a stipulation more honoured in the breach than the observance. Based on this, to the best of my knowledge, the image is correctly licensed, provided (AGF) that the uploader also took it. Constantine ✍ 15:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Why is Hazlitt (1915) still regarded a reliable source?
    • Hazlitt's work is actually older than that, dating to the 1860s in its first editions. It is only used for narrative parts of the history, and is itself based on Samuele Romanin's history of Venice, which is the starting point for all modern histories of the Republic. I hesitated before using it, but it is often the case that modern works will not be as detailed in their descriptions of events, as they tend to summarize the very detailed narrative histories that were largely written in the 19th century and focus mostly on new interpretations or bringing in new sources (e.g. non-Venetian ones) or new techniques (archaeology, forensics, etc) to supplement and illuminate the narrative. I have seen a lot of modern sources (including Romano 2024, for example) that reference Romanin's work directly, so I don't think the age of the source is really an issue, if used with awareness of its limitations. Constantine ✍ 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Romano (2024): location is missing. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: I have addressed the comments above, and await further feedback. In the meantime, have a happy new year and a good time with your loved ones! Constantine ✍ 16:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

I was checking the English language sources to confirm that "Tiepolo conspiracy" is indeed the common name in English since "conspiracy" is usually a word to avoid on Wikipedia. Looks like the sources hold out. Adding them here in case anyone is curious:

  • Lane: "Tiepolo-Querini conspiracy"
  • Hazlitt: "Quirini-Tiepolo Conspiracy"
  • Nicol: "Tiepolo ... conspiracy"
  • Romano: uses revolt/rebellion too but most commonly "conspiracy"

czar 16:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
  • ... that after the failure of the Tiepolo conspiracy of 1310, the houses of the chief conspirators were torn down, and their families were forced to change their coats of arms?
  • Source: Ravegnani 2017, pp. 19-20
Improved to Good Article status by Cplakidas (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 146 past nominations.

Constantine ✍ 14:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiepolo_conspiracy&oldid=1266627398"