Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Mark's Basilica/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2022 [1].

St Mark's Basilica

[edit]
Nominator(s): Venicescapes (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the art historian and Byzantinist Otto Demus, St Mark's Basilica is "the key to the understanding of all of Venice, of its history, and of its art"; for John Ruskin it’s a "confusion of delight"; for Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, it’s "a giant crab" ("einen kolossalen Taschenkrebs"). Regardless of the differing opinions, St Mark's Basilica is undeniably unique, the single-most important monument in one of the world's most visited and admired cities. As a topic on Wikipedia, the basilica is of High importance for three WikiProjects and a level-5 vital article in Art.

Thank you to No Great Shaker for the GA review and the encouragement to go further.Venicescapes (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe

[edit]
  • Oppose and recommend withdrawal. There are a lot of good qualities in this nomination, but it will require considerable work to get it to FA status. At 80 kB (13008 words) with 50 (!) notes, the article length is clearly excessive and will require substantial cutting (by 1/3 to 1/2 the current prose length), probably by splitting the article into subtopics and using WP:Summary style. Why are citations being used in the lead, they aren't necessary? (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at the article; I'm glad you see some good qualities. St Mark's is a complex building with a complex and extensive history, and I have tried to cover all of the pertinent topics in a succinct manner. None of the individual sections appears to be excessively long. With regard to the overall length, please consider that Cleopatra (indicated by Wikipedia as a model for a Featured Article) has 210,999 bytes, 13,470 words, and 87 notes. All of these parameters exceed those of St Mark's Basilica. As mentioned on the Article Size page: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". As to the lead, some citations could be eliminated since the information is covered in the article. However, there is information included to give an immediate sense of the building's importance, which is consistent with MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." I have provided references for the quotations and examples.Venicescapes (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you are able to find one FA that is overly long and detailed does not mean that it should be accepted at FAC, (and no, it is not "indicated by Wikipedia as a model for a Featured Article"—there is no official hierarchy of featured articles). There are many counterexamples such as Armenian genocide, a recent promotion that is covered in just over 7,000 words or Huey Long which was split and trimmed to an appropriate length in order to get through FAC.
You are correct that the 'article quality grading scheme' lists Cleopatra as an "example" of a FA, rather than a "model". My mistake. However, I tend to interpret the two terms as synonymous. I'm sure that examples and counterexamples of long or short articles can easily be found, which seems to validate the MOS statement: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". I believe the needs of the article and the reader are of primary importance since FA should be "a definitive source for encyclopedic information". Again, in the case of St Mark's, there is a considerable amount of ground to cover to make sense of it all. I have nevertheless limited the scope. For example, in the longest section on the decorative programme I certainly did not cover every mosaic and every inscription, but only those needed to explain the overall meaning. Perhaps in the spirit of constructive criticism, you could let me know what you specifically see as superfluous.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the article goes into too much detail everywhere and could use trimming across the board, but one place to start would be the notes. Generally, content should be either important enough to include in the body, or not important enough to include in the article at all. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am I understanding correctly that you are opposed to explanatory notes?Venicescapes (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notes that are strictly for clarification are the only case of notes I accept as a reasonable use, but in this case they go way overboard. (t · c) buidhe 11:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if I understand correctly you do not 'accept' that explanatory notes "are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read." as per explanatory notes. Is this correct?Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just being used to add additional information, it belongs in sub-articles, not the main article. WP:Summary style is not being used here and that's concerning because it's required by the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 00:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Summary style is not a unique criterion to FA but is a guideline for all Wiki articles. The converse is also true; all other guidelines are applicable to FA. In this case, the use of explanatory notes does not change based on the quality scale. By definition, they exist to provide additional and/or clarificatory information. This is Wiki policy. None of the notes in the article is substantial enough in its own right to justify a separate article. Some readers will be interested and can read them; others will not and can read just the article. There are already numerous internet articles on the basilica with information, largely cursory, that is more-or-less accurate. Creating yet another is senseless. As a self-proclaimed encyclopedia, Wikipedia should and can be more.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All facts in the lead should also be in the body, making all citations redundant (barring a few exceptions that don't seem to be relevant). If there is info in the lead that is not in the body, that is a more serious issue.
I have removed the citations for information that is also covered in the body. As mentioned, I provided a quotation and examples in the lead which are meant to convey the relevance of the basilica. These are not repeated in the body and are consequently cited in the lead. Please let me know how you interpret the MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." Also, please let me know what information doesn’t seem to be relevant.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about refs 2-7? Is the information under these refs not covered in the body? If so, that would need to be fixed. There are also parts of the body that do not comply with FA criteria's inline citation requirements. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the four citations you requested in the body. For refs 2–7, they are for quotations and examples in the lead. You write "that would need to be fixed". In what sense? Again, how are you intrepeting the MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles."? Please let me know which parts of the body do not comply with "FA criteria's inline citation requirements". Are you referring to the four requests for citations for which you placed a template?Venicescapes (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What specific facts in the lead are not in the body, and why aren't they included there? (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are those that have the citations and are meant to give an idea of the centrality of the church in the life of the city. To include them in the body would require an additional and extensive section on historical events that took place in the church over centuries and on civic ceremonies.Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a straight answer to the question, specifically quoting the exact things in the lead that aren't in the body? (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, the information that is not repeated in the body is specifically: (1) As the state sanctuary, it was the site of official religious and civic ceremonies, including … the consignment to the capitano generale da mar of the banner of Saint Mark, symbol of the supreme authority to defend the republic on the sea in wartime. Here, peace treaties and alliances were also solemnized and victories celebrated. The church additionally served as the meeting hall of the Concio until the popular assembly's dissolution in 1423. (These are examples to give a sense of the importance of the building, which is consistent with Wiki guidelines.) (2) The interior of the domes, the vaults, and the upper walls were slowly covered with roughly 8,500 square metres (91,000 sq ft) of gold-ground mosaics …. (Again, this is to give a sense of the extent of the mosaics. The mosaic section in the article covers the mosaics purely from an artistic perspective.) (3) For its singular importance, St Mark's Basilica was defined by the art historian and Byzantinist Otto Demus as "the key to the understanding of all of Venice, of its history, and of its art." (The quotation by Demus is again to give a sense of the importance of the building. Again, this is consistent with Wiki guidelines.)Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another serious issue I just noticed is that the article cites several sources from the 19th century. How can these be considered "high-quality reliable sources" per the FA criteria especially since as you indicate this is an important topic on which many recent sources are available? (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you are referring to the various essays from The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history. My understanding from your user page is that you, too, are an historian. So I’m sure you appreciate that historical research is a process as new interpretations, discoveries, and conclusions come along. Some topics, however, remain dormant for decades in the absence of new archival or archaeological discoveries. The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history remains of fundamental importance for the documentary research.
You will have noted that I reverted your edit to the page which deleted the map of Saint Mark's Square. As I explained in the edit summary, the map is needed to show readers the physical relationship between the church and the other buildings. The map is used on multiple Wiki pages in seven different languages precisely for the buildings in the square and not for the square itself.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced that this 19th century source is a high-quality RS according to the FA criteria, if any of its claims are sufficiently important to include, these claims would be repeated in more recent sources. (t · c) buidhe 11:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the criteria again, but did not see anything of pertinence. Perhaps I missed it. Can you please let me know under which FA criteria this would not be considered a reliable source?Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The featured article criteria requires "high-quality reliable sources", it's up to the nominator to show that all sources cited meet this requirement. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the second period of Austrian rule (1814–1866), the documents coming from the various offices, councils, and magistracies of the former Venetian Republic were consolidated. This piqued interest, favoured research, and led to the publication of several important works that remain fundamental for consultation. The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history is one of these works. Some essays in the book deal with architecture and art and have been superseded by more recent scholarship. The essays consulted for this article concern the organizations and functions of offices within the Venetian government. That information has not changed since the nineteenth century, since the Republic no longer exists. Generally speaking, publications in the past, in many instances financed by the government or academies, were more scholarly as opposed to more recent works that are often conditioned by commercial and marketability considerations. Hence the Lorenzetti guidebook (used in this article), despite its age, provides far more information since it was conceived for a tourist that at the time likely had a liberal-arts education and sojourned for longer periods in the city. Modern guidebooks, conceived for the mass-tourist market, tend to have more glossy pictures and little information. With all due respect, to any historian or research scholar, your claim that information not included in recent publications is not “sufficiently important” is patently absurd.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your willingness to read through the article and for any suggestions as to how it could be streamlined with judicious trimming. Admittedly, my technical skills with infoboxes are limited; a more experienced user might be able to obtain the same effect, beginning with the Church infobox. Basically, I needed to logically organize the information and clearly distinguish the two periods of the basilica’s history, grouping together all of the information about the church’s status as a cathedral and a ducal chapel. The Church infobox places the status information (cathedral) in one section and the episcopal-see information (patriarchate of Venice) in another, interrupted by the architectural information. Also, the Church infobox uses a terminology (archdiocese) that is not completely accurate for the patriarchate. Before the section on status, I placed all of the information that is shared between the basilica as the present cathedral and as the historical chapel of the doge (location, consecration, relics, etc.) All of the architectural information is organized after, using the second image as a clear divider. This also immediately shows the reader both the exterior and the interior, both of which are mentioned in the lead. It is the same solution used for the Biblioteca Marciana where the information about the library as an institution is clearly separated from the architectural information. For overall appearance, I utilized the same colour-scheme that the Church infobox uses for Roman-Catholic churches. Again, a more technically skilled user might be able to achieve the same result beginning with the Church infobox. But I think the key information about the basilica, as is organized, is comprehensible at a glance.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ergo Sum, Greetings from Venice. I hope you are well. I was wondering if you had any further guidance, corrections, or suggestions.Venicescapes (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought, before my GA withdrawal, that this was, on the whole, an excellent article. I do remember thinking, however, that some sections/notes were apt to get a bit too detailed or technical; that some phrasing was awkward; and that the background section especially needed some work. It is a long article, yes, (if approved, I believe it would be the largest FA architecture article by a full 5000 readable words, over Millennium Park) but apart from some parts of the background, I don't believe any sections can reasonably be spun off into a new article. Some trimming is definitely needed, but I certainly believe it's a fair FA candidate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for your input. I'm glad you're feeling better. I've done some limited streamlining. If you can let me know which areas appeared too technical or awkward, I can reword those specifically.Venicescapes (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ceoil

[edit]

Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Have read it all in last 4 days, and to say wow; the breath and depth is deeply admirable. Two things to start off:[reply]

  • I don't have a problem with the length, although it did seem that the background veered off topic a few times, and frankly at times was wondering what page I was reading and how it would resolve. Against that, the architecture sections are a joy, and it took four days to read because I keep following links and veering outwards.
Thank you for your time and edits. I'm glad you enjoyed the architecture sections. On the background, let me know how it might be further condensed or its relevance made clearer to the reader. Demus uses 13 pages for the Aquileian background, and in some form it needs to be covered since (1) many of the mosaics in the chancel and choir chapels illustrate the transfer of apostolic authority from Aquileia, through Grado, to Venice (2) it explains why Mark and 'his' church become so central to Venice's self identity.Venicescapes (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have no problem with 19th c sources being used for things like description and basic matters of fact. I can identify with the nominators statement above that some areas remain understudied, and that he is citing back to the source rather than summary overviews etc that quote that source. Otherwise it would be "in 2002 X noted how Y in 1893 noted how". I do this all the time; when a more recent scholar cites an earlier scholar but doesn't develop the observation or theme, I dig out the earlier work, because attribution and respect.

I look forward to supporting this article. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re the first point re length, I suspect it will be shortened not by spinning out sections, but by reducing words. eg why do we have even at claiming historical precedence over the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Egypt, believed to have been nfounded by Mark.[9]

[para break and then]

No historical evidence exists to support the claim. for example. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more streamlining.Venicescapes (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to soften re summary style, given that the article is already 11856 words, and can we say that (reflecting my own interests) that the "Chancel and choir chapels" and especially the mosaics sections are fully complete and cannot be further developed, work that might be hampered if the length issue is at back of mind. I can speak and vouch for one objector (Gog) as usually fair "and" detail orientated, but in this case a fear might be the impossibility of reviewing an extremely long tract. Have only been involved in generating one comparable FAC (Early Netherlandish painting, 12775 words) but was blessed by reviewers I had already built relationships with that were willing to spend days and weeks trawling through. Luckily we weren't asked to spin out there (and the article anyways wasnt suited to that approach), but the last time I saw a satisfactory resolution on this issue was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1. Still thinking, but posting son the review doesn't go stale. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also to say, I'm deeply frustrated/conflicted on this nom...haven't we always being saying the weakness of the process is tat it favours micro topics, and now we have a vital article and are scratching our heads? What got me at the objects so far is that they seemed from a quick scroll up and down and didn't offer suggestions as to what sections were over extended. Having read the page a few times now, I certainly don't see padding, but I do see sections (mentioned above) that deserve stand alone articles, that could (happy days) be further expanded in the future. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under ordinary circumstances, and being familiar with Venicescapes 's ability and form I would be a support already. Holding off for now as do see room for some sections having separate articles...and thus more leg room for expansion. To say again, this indecision is more our ie FACs (and include myself here as I've been around a long time) problem rather than Venicescapes, and really hope he perceivers and does not get discouraged as this is very much first rate content of which the project should be proud. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Laying my cards on the table, the above was an attempt at bridging, which did not work, which I have mixed feelings about. Venice is going for article integritry vs two co-ords, and have left a note here. Never the less, no reader is forced to read all of this consistently high quality article; As a reader I mostly mostly hop from here to there depending on how I landed via a blue link or goole search query. Have read this page several times and beyond a few light ce's here and there, its obviously FAC quality and then some - its breath of research, prose, setting in historical context and on and on are bars we should be holding up for future nominations, not quick failing by c0-ords within 7 minutes of the nom (hows that for a cabal approach for you). If this is failed on length, then it totally reinforces the reason why fac cookie cutter micro-topics are what FAC is institutionally geared towards, apart from over detailed mil hist recounting of medieval battles. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So anyway, Support on 1.a to 1.f, 2.a to 2.c, 3, 4. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reinforce a further disappointment at the way this was handled, the 2nd sentance rational in the oppose by Gog - "you have to be kidding me", if ever indicates total lack of perspective, circling of wagons, no mention of the achievement in getting the article to such a state; trimming needed or not, and gives the impression of a closed shop, with an direct insult to boot. Not good for editor rention, or front facing why more should engage with the fac process, and basically violates AGF (for old hands, imagine if you were new to this and told by Raul or Sandy "you have to be kidding me"). Ceoil (talk)

Comments by AirshipJungleman29

[edit]
  • Background section needs work. I would suggest that the Aquileia section be spun off into a different article — although reference to the dispute can and must be made in the article, it should not be as exhaustive as it is here. If you are determined on keeping it, I would suggest a heavier focus on Venice's role and situation in the dispute; to a casual reader this is not immediately clear.
  • There is already a dedicated article section for St Mark's relics - the story of the translatio does not need to be narrated in this article. A summary will do. Would probably suggest, in addition, that most of the section contents be moved there, leaving only a summary here.
  • Note 24 ("Michael Jacoff's proposed interpretation...") is too technical.
  • Notes 30/31 (on order of apostles and nations) are unneccessary and uncited - a deadly combination.

More later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I deleted the notes. The background section is going to take some thought, and any further suggestions are most welcome. As Otto Demus wrote: "the story of San Marco begins with these relics." The various stories (translatio, praedestinatio, and inventio) are subjects of mosaics explained further along and also show up again in the liturgy section. So I'm not sure how we can not explain them or expect readers to go to another page to find out. Again, suggestions are welcome. I'll try to trim the Aquileia section further.Venicescapes (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting not explaining the translatio, praedestinatio and inventio (TPI, for short), I'm simply suggesting we follow WP:SS with regard to it; that is, the whole smuggling shenanigans, which are, let's be honest, not immediately relevant to St Mark's Basilica, should be moved to Mark the Evangelist#Relics of Saint Mark, as a starting point. Their contents can be easily summarised in one or two sentences — the priest and monk, the pork subterfuge, the shipwreck salvation aren't needed here at all, since they are never really referred back to — and we can move on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relics moved into new article (St Mark's relics) along with Mark the Evangelist#Relics of Saint Mark to avoid overweighting on the Mark the Evangelist page. I need to o back and do some clean-up.Venicescapes (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assessment section is awkward throughout:
  • Long German/Italian quotations not needed in main text.
I can move these into notes if you prefer
Deleted
  • "magnificent grottesque" — grottesque isn't a word, and I'm not sure what you're going for.
One too many 'T's: grotesque
  • "Harsher is Mark Twain who, albeit fascinated by the basilica, sees it as "nobly" and "augustly ugly". Judging St Mark's to uniformly lack beauty, he considers it to be perfect" - I am confused.
He means perfect, but not in a positive sense. Rather perfect in the sense that it's all ugly with no beautiful intrusions.
I added "perfect in the sense of perfectly ugly".Venicescapes (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There really is no explanation. Francesco Sansovino in his guide (1581) talks about the importance of individual artefacts but doesn't really describe the building per se.Venicescapes (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted
AirshipJungleman29, I've made some more corrections/deletions. Please let me know if they help.Venicescapes (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venicescapes:, coming back to this article, I find myself overwhelmed by the notes, which I do feel are too inclined to verbosity and minutiae. Yes, explanatory notes "are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read", but quite a few notes are too long or awkward to read in and of themselves; take note two, for example, which I think we can agree is less an explanatory note and more an expository paragraph (could be incorporated into main text, or other articles, but probably shouldn't remain as a note). My feelings are thus (and yes, this will be confusing):

Note 1 - fine, does its job without being awkward. 2 - discussed above. 3 - could easily be incorporated into main text (it wouldn't make the previous sentence too long or awkward) or cut. 4 - unneccessary. 5 - awkward, too technical. 6 - you've just given the exact same reference as provided in the note; you don't need to repeat what Demus says at the page you've already cited. 7 - fine. 8 - see note 3. 9, 10 & 11 - see note 6. 12 - bit verbose, content reasonable. 13 - fine. 14 - unnecessary, given that nearly all the citations on the subject in the article already link to that book (which we could have a translated title of, now that I think about it).
15 - I'll be honest, it's late and my eyes glazed over looking at that paragraph, so, probably fine I guess? 16 - fine. 17 - probably unneccessary in this article. 18 - fine. 19 - see 2. 20 - unneccessary, a simple citation would do. 21 - see 3. 22 & 23 - see note 6. 24 - see 5. 25 - see 3. 26 - am I confused or is this just referring to note 2? 27 - see 4. 28, 29 & 30 - see 6. 31 - see 4. 32 - see 5 & 6 (the latter with reference to citation 191). 33 - see 6. 34 - see 20.
35 & 36 - fine. 37 - see 3 & 4. 38 - fine. 39 - see 3. 40 - see 2. 41 - see 3, 4, and 6. 42 and 43 - see 2 (on another note, this section incorporates rather a lot on "the many historical events that took place in the church and the various civic events", as you put to Tim riley — shouldn't be too hard to list the consignment of the capitano generale among them, surely?). 44 overlaps with 47 and 48; is also very technical, and could be shortened significantly and incorporated into main text. 45 & 46 - see 2 & 4.
Just my thoughts on what I feel is probably the main failing point of an excellent article. Hope you can make sense of my confused word-vomit — I've probably misinterpreted or oversimplified many many things.. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

[edit]
  • Why is there an external link in a caption? Suggest moving to a footnote or a {{external media}}
    I didn't know about this option. Thank you. I wanted to give readers unfamiliar with the polychoral style the opportunity to hear it so that they can understand better what is being discussed.Venicescapes (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current layout presents some sandwiching between images
    I saw two areas with sandwiching and corrected them (at least on my screen). In the first case, I moved the floorplan to what, in reality, is a more appropriate section. To avoid creating a new problem with sandwiching there, I placed it in a table between paragraphs, integrating with some graphics.
  • "The territory of Venetia circa 600 AD (Aquileia, Grado, and Venice (Rivoalto) are shown as underlined)" - underlining is not visible at that size
    reworded
I'd also suggest scaling up this map. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I can also redo the image to mark Aquileia, Grado, and Venice more prominently if this would help further.Venicescapes (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per request of Gerda (below), I increased the size of the names of Aquileia, Grado, and Venice.
  • Don't use fixed px size
    I may have to trouble you for some further guidance. I have 'upright' on all of the images that use the thumb parameter. Px size was used for the Infobox, Multiple image boxes, Wiki table, Gallery, and Wide image. But these don't seem to accept anything else. I tried 'upright', without success.
    I've just tested |upright= for the infobox and table images and it seems to work fine. On my screen if you remove the fixed size in the gallery nothing changes - what happens on your screen? As for the image templates, that is a known restriction on the use of these templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what happens.
    Gallery: I can remove the px parameter, but the images become tiny, almost postage-stamp size. I tried to add |upright= (followed by various numbers) both to the gallery and/or to the individual images. But they remain tiny.
    I still can't get the gallery to work with anything other than pixels.Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I can't replicate the behaviour you're describing. Do you have default image size set tiny for some reason? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the preferences. They're set for 220px (thumbnail size), 800x600px (image size limit on file description pages). Could you indicate an article that has the coding for the packed gallery as it should be without px? I can take a look to see what happens on my screen and copy as appropriate.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wide image: When I remove the px parameter, the image becomes very large, about 8 cm in height on my screen. If I add |upright= (followed by various numbers) to the Wide image code and/or the image itself, it remains very large.
    I changed to the panorama template. It still asked for px, only in height instead of width.Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Table: I can remove the px parameter from the table, and it just gets wider. No problem. But if I also remove the px parameter from the images (or substitute it with |upright= (+ some number), the images become huge (I have to scroll both vertically and horizontally to see it).
    I redid the table with a combination of |frameless= and |upright= for the images and width in em for the table. On my screen it looks identical to the previous table with pixels. Could you please confirm that it looks right?Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Infobox: I can remove the px parameter from the two images, but they become huge (I have to scroll both vertically and horizontally to see it). The same is true if I substitute the px parameter with |upright=.
    I used a combination of |frameless= and |upright= for the images in the infobox. On my screen it looks right. The info box is still the same width as the map of Saint Mark's Square below. Could you please confirm that it looks right?Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for checking and for helping me through this.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at the Great Fire of London which underwent FAR. Instead of the wide image template, it uses the panorama template. Is this a better solution? Venicescapes (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That can work. MOS:IMGSIZE allows for fixed px size when there is a very good reason, but in some of these cases we do have other options - for example using |upright= in combination with |frameless=. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text, where it is absent
    Added
  • Some of the details in captions warrant citation - for example dating
    Done
  • File:Maritime_Venetia_c_600_AD.jpg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Ditto File:Pianta_san_marco.jpg
    I have the sourcing for the map and the floorplan. How/where would you like that added? To the image or as a footnote?
    I added the information to the image files
    That's fine for the moment, but be aware there is a current discussion which may change practice on this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:San_Marko_(reconstruction).JPG needs a US tag and author date of death
    tag added. I'll need to research the author's date of death
    Antonio Pellanda died 13 November 1890
    I added the information to the image file
    When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Published as early as 1888 in Cattaneo, Raffaele, L'architettura in Italia dal secolo VI al Mille circa (Venezia: Ongania, 1888). I added the information to the image file as a note. There may be a slightly earlier version.
  • 'Spoils from the Fourth Crusade' - is there sourcing supporting that that's the provenance of the tetrachs?
    sourced
  • File:Thomas_Stuart_Smith-Interior_of_San_Marco.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Canaletto-sketch-the-choir-singing-in-st-mark's-basilica.jpg
    I wrote to the museum to ask if they have any record. I'll also continue to look.
    I was not able to find information on the first publication, and neither museum responded. So I deleted the images.Venicescapes (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Portal_of_Santo_Stefano_(Venice).jpg needs tagging for the original work. Ditto File:Venezia_Chiesa_di_Santo_Stefano_Innen_Langhaus_Süd_2.jpg, File:Madonna_dell'Orto_Portail.jpg, File:Santa_Maria_dei_Miracoli_facciata_sud_Venezia_notte.jpg, File:Arc_Foscari,_pati_del_Palau_Ducal_de_Venècia.JPG, File:Scuola_Grande_di_San_Marco_Ospedale_di_Venezia_facciata.jpg.
    tags added
    I added the tags, specifying in the edit summary that the PD tags concerned the original work and that the addition of the tags was per FAC review. However, the photographer deleted them. See, for example.
    I contacted the photographer and am awaiting a reply.
    The photographer did not reply and apparently will not accept PD tags on his photos. So I deleted the imageVenicescapes (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the thorough image review. Some items will require a few days of research.Venicescapes (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for a piece of love, - I'll read slowly, having many other things on my mind, and skipping the lead until last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time and input. I hope that you enjoy reading the rest, and I look forward to your further observations/suggestions/corrections.Venicescapes (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I wonder why the name of this place is St Mark's B., the English way, while in the rest of the world, it would be St. Mark's B., with a dot. I know it simply as San Marco, btw.

The article already had the English abbreviation. To change it would also require changing the spelling throughout the article (Oxford English) plus, for consistency, the other pages: St Mark's Clocktower and St Mark's Campanile. As I understand it, a contracted form of a word that ends with the same letter as the full form should not have the dot. So Saint = St, Doctor = Dr, BUT Professor = Prof..
I understand, and for the same reasons we have St Matthew Passion, and everytime I see it it looks wrong ;) - because iit's a German piece, and the German abbr. would be "St.". But I'm too lazy to initiate a change, and when someone else did it found no consensus. - This is an Italian building, not an English one. --GA

Infobox

  • I miss an Italian name, and would place Basilica di San Marco at the very top, followed by the English short name - a derived name - the following line.
  • I miss many links, beginning with Venice.
    I added the Venice link. Are there others specifically?
    Yes, because for many, the infobox is where they will look first. Roman Catholic (why Roman, btw, when our article is Catholic Church?) - Mark the Evangelist - Mark, Peter, John, Matthew, Luke, Bartholomew, Isidore of Chios - minor basilica - Patriarchate of Venice - Doge of Venice - Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic --GA
    I personally see 'Catholic Church' as ambiguous. Both the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed refer to the 'Catholic Church' in the sense of universal church and are recited by many different Christian denominations. 'Roman Catholic' is clearly the specific church with the pope as its head. For the rest, I suppose it depends on how one sees an Infobox. My personal opinion is that an infobox should give all of the pertinent information at a glance and shouldn't function as a navigation bar to leave the article. But I bow to whatever is the prevailing vision.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (you didn't repeat the bullet) - You are right that Catholic Church would be ambiguous, but not Catholic Church. Same for some other links missing. Which Peter? I never heard of Isidore of Chios, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can put in the links, but bear in mind that this is going to make infobox almost solid blue.
    (please repeat the bullet when replying to a bullet) Are the relics - besides Mark's - really crucial enough to be mentioned (while artists and composers are not)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. What if we simply delete the relics or say Mark the Evangelist and others? Did I get the repeat bullet right this time?Venicescapes (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

  • "St Mark's relics" - I see that it is the name of our article but think that this article would profit from consistently distinguishing the evangelist from the building. I'd say "Mark the Evangelist" vs. "St. Mark's", but "Saint Mark" vs. "St Mark's" would also work.
    They're venerated as the relics of 'Saint Mark'. Whether they are the remains of 'Mark, the Evangelist' is another matter. So I moved the page from St Mark's relics to Saint Mark's relics to avoid nitpickers. Good suggestion.
  • Why are the Mosaics not under Interior?
    As is, the interior is under the broader heading of "Architecture". So the mosaics are treated separately.
  • Why three numbers for the references, instead of one with two subsections?
    Excellent idea! I grouped them together. I'll do the same on the other pages for the buildings around the square for consistency.

Aquileia

  • I confess that it tired me a bit, and that the map is too small for me to help. How about merging most of it to the "Schism" article, and leave only a summary, as for the relics?
    I increased the size of the map. If needed, I could also redo the image and write Aquileia, Grado, and Venice more prominently. Let me know.
    yes, please --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Others have made similar observations. So I'm clearly going to have to explain this better. The Aquileia/Grado conflict explains why Saint Mark is adopted as patron and why his church becomes so political. Its the reason why many of the mosaics in the chancel illustrate the transfer of metropolitan authority from Aquileia, through Grado, to Venice. Demus spends 13 pages at the beginning of his book on the subject. While I don't think that I can cut it down any further without losing coherency, perhaps I could add an introductory paragraph for 'Background', letting the reader know upfront why this is being discussed. Would this help?
    The Schism of the Three Chapters concerns several churches in northern Italy (not just Aquileia) and is largely a prelude. It is the theological dispute that leads to the creation of two bishops (Aquileia and Grado). But that aspect is resolved at the Synod of Aquileia in 698–700, after which it becomes a purely political question of jurisdiction. Only this second aspect is the background for the relics and St Mark's Basilica.
    Think about it, - I remember this wish to trim the article, and see a way here. Like we made Messiah structure when Messiah got too long. - How many readers of this article do you expect to care about the fine details presented here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I shall have to give this some more thought. On the Messiah page, the Background section seems to have the same function of setting the stage. I don't think you could break that off from the rest of the article.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would probably have had more music, and referred to the composer's bio more, but I was only a helper at the time, invited by masters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I added a few sentences at the beginning of the section to explain why it is so important to understanding the importance of St Mark's for Venetian self-identity. Does this help?Venicescapes (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read up to title Architecture, with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep a bullet when replying to a bulleted list, per the essay on top of User talk:Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Western façade

  • I try to avoid images right below a header, especially if that header is short.
    I noticed that you moved the interior photo right (I believe for the same reason). What about if we slid the heading to the side? If possible, I'd like to use the photos on the left to prevent the stacking up on the right, but also to help signal major shifts in topic.
    In former times, we even had guideline to prohibit a pic directly under the header. It makes sense to me: it's irritating for the reader to have to move right in the next line. In 'my" articles, I have left images only when a person looks right, and then only if enough space abelow to now displace the next header. Displays on different devices differ. This is not a point I'll not support over but perhaps think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the image of the western facade around, but nothing worked. Moving it down, it sandwiched with others. Moving it to the right, it stacked up and pushed others further down. For the interior image, I tried moving the heading to the side.
  • "Gentile Bellini's Procession in Piazza San Marco" - I'm used from Classical to not link a creator when the work has an article, to avoid too much blue.
    fixed
  • why Virgin (capital) but evangelists (lc)?
    this will create a problem with apostles as well. Looking at MOS:Titles of people, I think that if it's plural it should be lower case, unless Four Evangelists (group) and Twelve Apostles (group). Single Evangelist and Apostle (in substitution of name) should probably be capitalized.
    You are right about apostles as well, but I was too tired to mention that. I read the guideline different: if these specific four, then Evangelists (not any evangelists), and if these specific 12, then Apostles (not any apostles), such as Reformation vs. reformation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I capitalized all Apostles and Evangelists

Entry hall

  • "his gospel" - why lc when his specific Gospel?
  • Fixed

Narthex

  • "The story of Joseph, also a type of Christ" - how that?
    The explanation I'm familiar with is that Joseph is sold into bondage. Yet through that bondage he becomes the savior (from famine in Canaan) of his people. Similarly, Christ is sold into bondage and saves humanity.
    Not enough that you are familiar with something ;) - if it's needed (which I doubt) please supply a link or a footnote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you were asking because you were curious. Sorry. It's in the reference, but you're right in that I can simply delete it.

Decorative programme

  • Why is Last Judgment linked in the last para?
  • Removed

Chancel ...

  • "Saint Pope Clement I" - I thought it's Saint or Pope.
    Italian usage would be with both since Clement is his name as pope. I did a search for 'Saint Pope John Paul II' and found both 'Saint John Paul II' and 'Saint Pope John Paul II'. However, I noticed that the Catholic sites generally use 'Saint Pope Paul II' as, for example, here and here. The Vatican also retains Pope in the Latin title as saint, here.
    What matters is what Wikipedia says, not Italian, not the Vatican: Pope Clement I. I recently wrote about St. Sylvester, - I don't think a church would be named St. Pope Sylvester. Keep simple, if in doubt? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I stripped him of his earthly title.

Read until the title Mosaics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased with all replies, and the indenting now ;) - You decide wether to keep more relics (but then linked please), and the analogy Joseph-Jesus (but then with explanation) - Only open point from above open is that I'd really like to see an Italian name on top of the image in the ibox. I prefer first line, but second line is better than nothing. I'll see if I get to reading further today: rehearsal! Until then, I want to write an article in English, and one in German, women of course ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the native name to the Infobox and deleted the relics (simpler, plus they're mentioned in the text). I'll reword the part on Joseph.Venicescapes (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
any other than "Saint" which - in this article - means the saint, not the place --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article now.

Music

  • "the procurators of Saint Mark" - not sure that is about the Saint. Will turn to the lead hopefully tomorrow. --
    The title is variously translated. In English sources, of Saint Mark (or of St Mark) tends to prevail, but the more accurate title, given the full original Latin, would probably be of St Mark's. What would you prefer?Venicescapes (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead The lead is mostly fine, but I think should cover more aspects, such as importance of the relics, history of building and music (Monteverdi and the Gabrielis are recognised names).

I have the relics. Yes, I do have to do something about music.
  • episcopal in 1807 - can we have a bit more about before, such as the Doge there already? that late year comes as a complete surprise ;)
    I have 'what it is' in the first paragraph and 'what it was' in the second.
  • Concio - yes there's a link but how about adding "assembly"?
    It's a little further along.
  • limited Islamic? - "some" or something else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    'some' (unnumberable) created a problem with influences (numberable). So, I simply deleted 'limited'.
    All fine by me now, support. A treasure of an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, thank you for taking the time to read through the article and for judging it on its merits. I’m grateful to you for your suggestions and corrections and, ultimately, for your support. Best wishes.Venicescapes (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by No Great Shaker

[edit]
  • Tentative support. As the recent GA reviewer, I'd be happy to answer any questions about that aspect although I realise FA is a much more searching process than GA. Please note, though, that I'm very busy offsite at present.
I agree entirely with the comments by Johnbod and I'll be interested to read the whole of Gerda's comments when she has had chance to finish.
I sincerely hope the opposition to 19th century sources is rejected because it simply doesn't follow that a modern source necessarily has more to say than the older one, or can somehow improve upon the information it presents. That seems to be a case of WP:RECENTISM, in my opinion.
AirshipJungleman29, I'm glad to read that you are well again and hope you are making a full recovery. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • 15,000+ words. You have to be kidding. Oppose on WP:CANYOUREADTHIS and WP:SUMMARY. A clear candidate for WP:SPLITTING. It would seem to me appropriate to have a separate article for each [most?] of the separate buildings at about the level of detail given here, and for this article to be a much shorter and punchier summary of these "child articles". Currently fails the FAC criterion "without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style" horribly. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is actually about a single building. So please let me know what gives the impression that it concerns "separate buildings" so that I can at least make the necessary clarification.Venicescapes (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the prose as 12,349 words, roughly 18% less than 15000+. What does the 15000+ refer to?Venicescapes (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The oppose seems blanket, rigid, with no suggestions, and thus not actionable. I can't understand why anybody in 2022 couldn't imagine that any fabled reader is looking to read the article from top to bottom, rather than be lead here via a search query and will then digest as much of the coverage of that area as they can, and then blue link out. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose is eminently actionable. Read WP:SPLITTING and act accordingly. I am sure the coordinators are capable of deciding whether so splitting is possible and therefore actionable.
There were 12,349 words of "readable prose" as defined in WP:LENGTH (12,026) as of now). There are a further 3,003 words of footnotes. This does not include captions.
If it is not felt that the article could sensibly be split by building/structure/component/facade/whatever (and apologies if I confused and/or continue to confuse with my poor nomenclature) then both history and architecture could be spun off as separate articles. Or it could conceivably be split some other way, as the nominator or a consensus of interested editors preferred. I am not persuaded that this is one of those very rare exceptions which could not be split.
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course one could split off the history or architecture of one of the most famous churches in the world for just these things, but it would be madness to do so, and I'm sure the nominator has far too much sense to do it. If the article cannot pass in a high-quality and well-balanced state, which inevitably means a long article, it would be better just to withdraw it, & just leave FAC to the pop-songs and other microtopics. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not true at all that a "high-quality and well balanced" article requires excessive length; that is what summary style is for. It is possible to write concise overviews of broad topics and get these to FA status. (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We all want "high-quality and well-balanced" articles, especially FACs, and, Johnbod, I find it offensive that you suggest that I don't. What we are doing here is discussing just what that means, in the context of the FAC criteria - which ("It follows the style guidelines") includes the MoS and criterion 4. It would be helpful if everyone took a deep breath and WP:AGF. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that it is necessary to assume good faith. On my part, I have continued to streamline the article, eliminating roughly 1000 words (circa 8 %) since it was first nominated. I also believe that it is necessary to carefully consider the needs of the subject and particularly of the reader and to put those needs in the forefront. In this case, the average reader is most likely someone who is actually in Saint Mark's Square and wants to understand the building. Some will have probably chosen to consult Wikipedia, rather than a guidebook, simply for convenience and cost. But others (I hope the majority) look to Wikipedia for encyclopedic information that isn’t included in the standard guidebook.
What constitutes 'too long' or 'overly detailed' is of course subjective, varying on the basis of the individual's personal likes and interests. Notably, the actual reviewers (coordinators aside) have all remarked that the length is not necessarily a problem and, more importantly, that the various aspects of the building cannot be "spun off" or "shunted away". I should note that both the relics and the treasury have already been broken off and that some aspects that could stand on their own, such as preservation, were not even included so as to not excessively lengthen the article.
With regard to breaking apart the article further, I advise caution. If St Mark's had been designed and built as we see it, it might be possible (although in my opinion still not advisable) to separate history and architecture. But St Mark's is the result of an evolution: knowing that there are remnants of earlier constructions and that the structure has been radically altered over time (its history) is necessary to understanding how it looks (its architecture). The two cannot be disentwined. The background section, already concise, is also necessary to understanding why St Mark's was built in the first place and why it was so central to Venice's national identity. I also doubt that the section could stand on its own.
Simply put, St Mark's is complex, and many aspects need to be covered. If each section of the article is considered singularly, none is excessively long or overly detailed.
Summary style has been repeatedly invoked in this conversation. But this too is subjective. I agree that topics that can be reasonably developed into articles can be summarized. Yet FA, as defined in the quality scale, remains: "thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information." I do not interpret summary style as reducing the article to a mere directory to other pages or a "concise overview". It should not be necessary for a reader to go to other pages to get basic information (again subjective), but only to delve deeper into certain aspects, such as the mosaics. In considering what summary style means, the fifth pillar comes to mind: "policies and guidelines are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions".
St Mark's is a level-5 vital article in Art, meaning that it should eventually reach FA, and as a world-renowned monument, it would certainly be included as a subject in a printed encyclopedia. It would be a sad commentary on the Wiki community if it were not able to come together to produce a high-quality article that meets the needs of all its readers.Venicescapes (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley

[edit]

There's bags of good stuff in this article, but I think the lead needs a good deal of work to get it up to an acceptable standard. The MoS guide to leads lays down that they must summarise the main text, and that there shouldn't be anything in a lead that isn't in the body of the article. Here we have mentions in the lead of, inter alia, the capitano generale da mar, the solemnising of peace treaties and alliances and celebration of victories, the dissolution of the Concio in 1423, 8,500 square metres of gold-ground mosaics, and a quotation about "the key to the understanding of all of Venice" none of which are covered in the main text as far as I can see, though perhaps I have missed some or all of them in this enormously long text. Tim riley talk 11:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I'm glad that you found the article's content interesting. It is a fascinating building with a long and rich history. Thank you for taking the time to read through it. For the information in the lead that is not included in the body, the MOS/Lead Section-relative emphasis section specifies "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." The quotation and the examples you mention were included simply to give a sense of the importance of the building and its central role in Venetian history. To include them in the body would require adding a whole new section to the article where it would be necessary to cover the many historical events that took place in the church and the various civic events, such as the consignment of the banner of Saint Mark. The Concio is mentioned, albeit briefly, in the section on the Orseolo Church. Please let me know if there are other aspects that could be further improved.Venicescapes (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead of MOS:LEAD "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not consider the reference to the capitano generale da mar to be 'significant information' but rather an example of the church's central role. At any rate, it's gone.Venicescapes (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gone are also the quotation by Demus and the brief reference to peace treaties and alliances, in case they, too, are considered 'significant information'.Venicescapes (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Although the article is, in general, well-written and very comprehensive, I tend to agree with Gog that it's just too long and could be split, perhaps with detailed articles on its history and architecture, and the main article on the church containing that information in a more summary style.
Some specific prose comments:
  • "to alternatively convene" perhaps "to convene instead"
"Within two years, the church was repaired and at the sole expense of the Orseolo family, indications that the actual damage was relatively limited." The prose could perhaps be improved.
  • "Thessalonica" perhaps spell and link Thessaloniki
  • Is it "revetments" or "revetmets"? You use both
I'll be happy to revisit and spend more time on it if it gets near promotion. Feel free to ping.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Beautiful article on a beautiful place. It's obvious that a lot of hard work has gone into it but I think it needs some work before it's ready for its star.

  • It could do with a copy edit in places to improve the flow
  • parts of the background section seem to veer off topic and much of it could be trimmed or distilled (which would help address other reviewers' concerns about length at the same time)
  • the number of footnotes is massively excessive and much of the content seems not to be directly related to the church. You could probably justify a whole background article if you wanted or find a home for this information in another article but much of it doesn't belong here.
  • there are uncommon terms like "dodge" and "relic" (just for examples) that need explaining.

This isn't a formal oppose but given his long this has been at FAC, I’d suggest working on it away from the review process and then renominating. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't look like this is going to be gaining a consensus to promote right now. This is an excellent effort; I hope you can work with the reviewers outside of FAC and bring this one back here again. Hog Farm Talk 13:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/St_Mark%27s_Basilica/archive1&oldid=1082219989"