Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palazzo Pitti

Palazzo Pitti

This is not a complete self nom. A very good article on the subject by Jnc provided an excellent foundation for the page in its present form. Palazzo Pitti is one of Florence's principal art galleries and buildings. As a palazzo it has witnessed a sizeable chunk of Italian history. Its separate galleries and museums could each be a Featured article in themselves. Hence the page is more descriptive of the Palazzo as a complex rather than dwelling on any one important artefact in its contents. Bishonen has kindly corrected my English, and tidied up the writing and grammar. Giano | talk 12:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A top class article from three of our finest. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a beautiful article. Comment: inconsistent use of 'The' in some titles; you might consider removing it in all titles. Tony 13:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bravo! I have just lightly copyedited (inter alia - before seeing Tony1's comment - removing most of the "The"s, but I think "The Medici" and "The Palazzo today" both still deserve one). The lead could also perhaps do with the teensiest of expansion, but I'm not sure which elements to pick out. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional commment: should it be Pitti Palace rather than Palazzo Pitti? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palazzo Pitti, Pitti Palace both are technically correct, I say Palazzo Pitti because that's how I think of it. However landmarks in Florence do tend (for some reason to retain their Italian name for example the Ponte Vecchio, is never called the "Old Bridge". where as in Venice one has the Rialto Bridge and Doge's Palace, but conversely Ca' Rezzonico - never the Rezzonico Palace. I don't know the reasoning, but to my ears Pitti Palace sounds like a casino in Las Vegas, so or these reasons, I've used the Florentine name. Giano | talk 18:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: Quick, put some references in before anyone notices that they're missing. Can you make the spaces between sentences consistently one, not a mixture of one and two? It will need a bit of a run through for minor clean ups. I presume that you've checked the copyright status of the images. I'd reduce the colour saturation on the first one—it's kind of ... pink. Tony 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the votes of support. I assumed the photograph is supposed to be pink. It is at least a hundred years old, quite possible more. so is in fact a genuine "rose tinted" photo. The palazzo has pinkish reddish stone, so I expect the hand tinter (if that's what they are called) was trying to express that effect with a sunset. I used that one in the lead, as (IMO) it is not the world's most beautiful building, and needed a little rose-tint, the last picture tells the unadulterated truth. Anyway no problem rose, pink whatever it looks fine to me whatever you've done to it. I'm unsure about the comment on references. There is a reference section. Giano | talk 18:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- But it has three print references. And doesn't Wiki software ignore repeated whitespace (except two newlines)? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I hadn't realised the space thing. More references needed, I think, without going overboard. Tony 23:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved two of the external links to references as they support the article and did provide some information to the article. I can't manufacture any further proper written references, because the three I have listed are the one's I used. In a noncontroversial subject, like this on an historic building, books tend to differ only on how in depth they take the subject, or in their illustrations (most of which are always copyright). Facts and dates tend to stay constant. I prefer to use written books as they in turn provide their own references and sources, whereas an internet site often does not, or can disappear over night. As far as references go, that's as far as I can go. Giano | talk 07:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that non-controversial history doesn't require inline citation, but the few value judgements in the article would benefit from it, or better direct quotes, rather than the 'some experts say' style. --zippedmartin 20:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It's fine. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, lovely page, and a masterful summary of much material. Disclosure: I merely did a superficial copyedit. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Good balance of graphics and text; definitely an FA. Brisvegas 08:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very pleasing article. A couple of picky comments, but nothing substantial. I find the use of "today" in an encyclopedia article a bit vague - or is that only me? - eg change the modern photo's caption to "The palazzo in 2005…" - I've done this. In fact, the whole section The Palazzo today could be recast - the title isn't relevant to the section's first paragraph which is about its timeless architectural merit, and the second paragraph might fit better under Palazzo Pitti galleries, subtitle Administration. The modern photo is attractive, but would it be improved by cropping out the foreground railing? The positioning of images in the sections Early history and The Medici seems to me not ideal, although I can't work out how it could be improved. No reason not to support, though. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I delayed coming back on your points, in order to have a think, but while I see where you are coming from, to be honest I don't know the answers. "Palazzo Today", or "Palazzo 2005" - do we update it after Christmas to 2006? Basically when writing an article like this until the last minute I always call the final section "conclusion" but people don't like that on FA - so what does one call "summing up" - I don't know. I don't like the sub-section idea of "Administration". I think by putting all the present day admin. stuff in the "conclusion" it drags the whole page up to present and thus the end. Regarding placing of pictures, I don't know how to do them properly, I just shove them in and hope for the best, so I am always delighted when someone like SimonP comes along and does them properly, I think he's done a good job, and I am very hesitant to start playing about with them - a bit like touching one's own plumbing! Regarding the final picture being edited - besides the fact I don't know how, as the first is obviously "rose tinted" perhaps it's best if the last is "warts and all". Thanks for the support Giano | talk 20:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object One sentence paragraph in Palazzo Pitti galleries - fix this and I'll withdraw my objection. Another thing (although will not effect objection) is that there are a lot of sections/subsections with only one paragraph.... consider expanding or combining. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It now contains three sentences and a link to an exiting new page. The subsections of one paragraph, I did think long and hard about; at one stage I had all the museums and galleries in one section. However, my final reasoning (rightly or wrongly) was that as an individual section standing alone they were more likely to be, and more easily, expanded. Either by me or hopefully some-one else. It may be that one day each can stand alone as a sub-page, this is certainly the case with the Palatine Gallery. Hope this convinces you to change you're vote. Giano | talk 09:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]