This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Hallo, it is nice that someone decided to write an article about Via della Conciliazione. Unfortunately, the sources which you used don't appear to be that good, since there are several errors there. I started to correct them. Alex2006 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the bulk of the mistakes and typos are due to having to rush the article out of the sandbox following Kitkatcrazy's creation of the article a few days ago, since I was aiming to have it feature in DYK before the timer ran out. It's also why the todo box is so large. With regards to Franco Franchi naming the street, the only references I can find for that are forked duplicates of a single hotel/holiday writeup of dubious origin. I can't find even a single reference to the guy even existing (though the existence of Franco Franchi the comedian may be obscuring other reputable sources.) I'm more than happy to be corrected in this, but you'll need something more substantial than a copy of the tourist brochure article to back it up. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 11:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
when I talk about errors, I am not referring to typos and mistakes, but to factual errors in the article. I think that these came from your main reference. I don't know whence this author got his knowledge, but apparently he did not read carefully the many books about Borgo and Via della Conciliazione which have been published in Italy about this subject during the last 70 years. One example above all: the obelisks of the road were not present in the original plan, but they have been conceived as 'escamotage' at the end of the forties, when it was clear to everyone that the visual effect of the two diverging surviving sides of the former roads of 'Borgo Vecchio' and 'Borgo Nuovo' was terrible.
In order to check it, you can read for example the book 'La spina dei Borghi' by Ceccarius (1938) where there is a perspective view of the original project of Piacentini and Spaccarelli (Nomen est Omen ;-)), without obelisks.
Moreover, Piacentini did not choose to orient the road on the obelisk of St. Peter's square. He had no choice, since it was not possible to demolish the N Part of Borgo Nuovo (with Palazzo Torlonia and S. Maria in Traspontina) and the S Part of Borgo Vecchio (with the Palace of Penitenzieri).
One last thing: in half an hour I am leaving (to Rome ;-)) for four days, but if you want when I will come back I can help you to improve the article, correcting the mistakes and inserting the necessary references.
Congratulations, I felt that this article easily passed GA status, meeting all of the essential criteria. In particular I found it to be well written, neutral, with a good collection of images and well cited. I do have a few pointers for improvement however:
"a street in the rione of Borgo within Rome" - I think these terms and others like them would be better off explained in line in addition to wikilinking ie "a street in the Borgo ward within Rome" Why use foreign words in an English-language encyclopeda entry?
"Despite being one of the few major thoroughfares in Rome able to cope with a high volume of traffic without congestion, it is the subject of much ire both within the Roman community and among historical scholars due to the circumstances under which it was constructed." I don't really understand how the two halves of this sentence tie together/ What has its capcity for high volume of traffic got to do with its dislike by historical scholars?
You wikilink to Sack of Rome, which is a disambiguation page linking to instances as far back as 387 BC - perhaps you should wikilink only to the relevant sackings of rome?
Your lead paragraph should summarise the contents of the rest of the article to come, it doesn't do this - ie you have a whole secion on Mussolini but he is not even mentioned in the lead paragraph