Talk:Procuratie/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 15:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised nobody has reviewed this yet, I will try to do it in the upcoming days. Yakikaki (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki Thank you. I look forward to working through it with you.Venicescapes (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part one

I will post my first part of the review now and hope to be able to continue tomorrow. This part is up to and including the Procuratie Vecchie section.

First of all, I see that you’ve already been through a thorough review process together with CaroleHenson. CaroleHenson helped me with my GA nomination of Lund Cathedral and I have myself learned a lot from her. I also know that Venicescapes is extremely knowledgeable and good at writing about the beautiful architecture of Venice. So I was not surprised to see that the article is already in excellent condition, basically ready to pass the GA. Consider my review more in the line of suggestions which we can discuss, therefore. There are no major obstacles from promoting the article even now, but if you would find the time to address my comments below perhaps we can polish it just a little bit further. Fantastic work from your side!

Lead:

I would recommend italicising Procuratie Vecchie, Procuratie Nuouve and Procuratie Nuovissime the first times they appear in the lead, per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.

I'm not sure. It would probably be necessary to put them in italic throughout the article. But I'm interpreting them as foreign words but proper names which, according to the MOS, should not be in italic: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parentheses after the English name..."

What do you think?

Good point, we will leave it as it is.

Although the war imposed financial constraints and limited innovation, it was nevertheless the first major public building in Venice to be erected in a purely classical style – consider wikilinking classical style to Classical architecture.

Done

Procurators of Saint Mark:

This section is fine as it is, but if you want I think you could also shorten it a bit. Its main purpose in the article is to supply background information about why the buildings are called the way they are and who built them, no?

You are correct. But I also need to explain the financial aspect of the office since the shops and the apartments are sources of rental income. The section also helps to understand the importance of the position. Unfortunately, the main page, Procurators of Saint Mark, is woefully inadequate.

OK, I see your point. Let's keep it as it is.

The effective sale of the position also made it possible for young and ambitious nobles to quickly rise to high office and to consequently exert great influence, notably Antonio Cappello and Vettore Grimani. – would it be better to split this into two sentences, perhaps? “The effective sale of the position also made it possible for young and ambitious nobles to quickly rise to high office and to consequently exert great influence. For example, Antonio Cappello and Vettore Grimani did so.”

I broke it into two sentences but with different wording. Let me know if it works.

Works just fine.

Procuratie Vecchie:

In order to limit the loss of revenue to the procurators, tenets were evicted from the surviving sections of the old building and their apartments demolished as space was needed to continue – so they were demolished piecemeal, one part at the time? If so, perhaps add a “…their apartments piecemeal demolished as space was needed…”?

I see your point that it's not the clearest of sentences. The apartments were demolished one at a time, but not one piece at a time. I rewrote the sentence. Let me know if it's clearer.

Now it reads very easily - thanks!

That’s all for now – I’ll return as soon as I can. Again, thank you Venicescapes for your hard work! Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part two

All right, here is the rest of my review. As you can see, there is not much to object to from my side:

Good morning.

And a good day to you! I hope everything is fine in Venice these days?

The coffeehouses are mentioned only in the lead, but not in the text, unless I missed something.

I wanted to mention the three historic coffeehouses since the pages exist. But you are correct that they are only mentioned in the lead along with the stores and workshops. The only way I can think of mentioning them in the main part of the article would be to develop a section to talk about the various types of shops that existed on the ground level over time. But given the structure of the article, it would be necessary to repeat this section for both the Procuratie Vecchie and the Procuratie Nuove. Do you have other ideas? Is it worth mentioning the coffeeshops at all?

I definitely think they are worth mentioning. Perhaps a short summary at the end of the section Procuratie Nuove - Architecture - Layout could do the trick? One or two sentences would be enough I think, basically repeating what's already in the lead? It doesn't have to be much but I think they deserve a mention.

I'll need to get to the library tomorrow afternoon.Venicescapes (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it later served as an almshouse for indigent women – remove “But”

Reworded. Let me know.

Great.

The building programme was strenuously advocated by wealthy and influential families within the aristocracy Would “was strongly advocated” be a simpler way to express the same thing?

Done

But following the death in 1595 of Scamozzi's chief supporter, procurator Marcantonio Barbaro Here too I think you can axe “But”.

Reworded. Let me know.

Looks fine.

In 1591, after the completion of the final five bays of the library by Vincenzo Scamozzi (1588), the offices were moved to the upper floor of the new building – for clarity, it could be good to add “the upper floor of the new library building”.

Done

Regards, Yakikaki (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again.Venicescapes (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for the quick reply! Let me know what you think of the coffeehouses and we're almost done. Yakikaki (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted the coffeehouses in the two "Later history" sections. Please let me know if the idea could work. For now, there are no sources. I'll have to go to the library tomorrow and then add references.Venicescapes (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine now, ready for GA status. (You can add the sources when you want, I think we did like this when I reviewed the article on the library also. I did a quick google search on the three coffeehouses and as far as I could see, the dates appear also in other places so it shouldn't be controversial.) Congratulations on another very good article, Venicescapes. You are truly a master of Venetian architecture. Yakikaki (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your trust and thank you also for your time and your recommendations for further polishing the article. Best wishes.Venicescapes (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]