Talk:Palazzo Medici Riccardi

Italy High‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses High‑importance

	Architecture portal 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Untitled

Why has this page been given a hyphen - there is no hyphen in Medici Riccardi? Giano (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the hyphen needs to be put back. Most English-language sources (including all art history books I've seen) hyphenate the name so as to create a distinction between Medici and Riccardi. -Lamarcus (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the hyphen does quite the reverse, and it's incorrect in the title. See: [1] [2] Hyphenating the name of the palazzo would imply that the Medici-Riccardi were one unified family like the Fearnley-Whittingstalls they were not, but two quite seperate families. In 1670, it was purchased from the Medici by the Riccardi family who enlarged it. Giano (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglophone errors

I noticed Anglophones make a lot of errors when trying to write Italian names... many even use Spanish words, as if they are the same languages! In this case a genius (among the other pearls contained in this article, including a flood of unsourced POV) mistook Michelangelo with Michelozzo! Curiously, despite English habit to make a big deal of anything related with their country and to overlook the rest (for example, they have a passion of Florence's Renaissance, but nearly MOST, if not ALL, THE REST of Italian Renaissance was really overlooked here!), in this case they forgot to mention that two Filippo Lippi's work, once in the palace, are now in London... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes for the page

Hi all, I'm new to editing but I have more information to add to this page and some changes that I will be making. To start, I have a few more bits of information that I will add to the Artwork section mentioning the sculptures created by Donatello that are in the Garden and the Courtyard. I also have found several other relevant sources pertaining to the architecture and the overall history of the building providing more context and more information regarding the palazzo itself. In the history portion I talk more about the sumptuary laws and how that effected the design of the building as well as giving more context into Cosimo de Medici because of his status and importance to the building and to this time period. In the architecture section I will add more information regarding Michelozzo and adding context to that regard mentioning that he was influenced and studied under Brunelleschi and how the building itself influenced a number of other styles for the future of Venetian palazzi. I will also talk more about the courtyard and the use of sgraffito as that was a significant part of the palazzo. Raustin5 (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by Logan Soto: Consider finding other buildings of the era or style that you can compare it to. If you have trouble finding information about this building specifically, it would be helpful to find information about others that are like it in order to establish more context to the history of the building. The political aspects you mentioned within the history section are interesting. It is a nice idea to give this building more historical context rather than making it a cut and dry article about the architectural aspects of the building. Without the history the building becomes more of a structure than a work of art. Consider doing a brief bio about the architect or artist behind it and adding a link in that bio to the page about him. Your language seems just a tad too colloquial. It should be simple but a bit more sophisticated in order to sound more professional. All in all the article looks quite good and your contributions have aided to paint a more colorful history of the palace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwarsgeek4 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]