Stable article, written by architectural historians and further editted by specialists in particular fields of history and architecture. Amandajm 05:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Support A very well-organised article, nicely handling a huge topic in a way that appropriately embodies the Renaissance virtues of harmony, clarity and proportion. I have added a few touches. It could perhaps do with a little more broad analysis of what differentiates the Renaissance style from the preceding Gothic architecture and the succeeding Mannerist style in the sections covering those transitions. Some of the references in the final sections could be more detailed. If key reference works were designated as such in a "Main references" section, those who might want more inline references should be satisfied, as individual buildings or national style variations are easy to find in Bannister Fletcher, Pevsner etc if you have the book (and if you don't have the book, they're no use to you). Johnbod 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I skimmed over this; here's some random notes for improvement. I picked a footnote at random and found this: "Buildings that sought to impress, such as the Paris Opera, were often of a more Mannerist or Baroque style." is referenced with "Charles Garnier", a disambiguation page. Now, I can guess which one is intended, but that doesn't help verify the statement. Don't restate the article title in section headings, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Use en dashes for date ranges and anywhere else appropriate (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes). Once again, I haven't read the whole thing, but I can't beleive that tiny lead summarizes the entire article. Make sure it can serve as a stand-alone summary, per Wikipedia:Lead section. Pagrashtak 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments As an opener, I'd echo Pagrashtak on headings, and particularly on the lead. A quick look at the references shows inconsistant formatting; WP:CITE/ES gives you examples of a style you can use consistently. I've also left you a message about the 8 other nominations you've made above, with regard to the instructions at the top of this page that state "Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed." I should be able to give this a proper read through and review in the next few days. J.Winklethorpetalk 08:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Further comments based on approximately a third of the article.
The first overall impression I get is that the writing does not flow as well as it might. There’s a tendency towards short or one-sentence paragraphs that contributes to this.
The lead should summarise the article, rather than introduce it. When starting the main body of the article, you need to act as if the lead does not exist.
“whose book, Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien 1860, was”. If you’re giving the book title, there’s no need to give the date after it, as it gives the appearance of a part-formed reference. Either drop the date, or work it into the prose as you have in the next sentence.
“most other European countries developed a sort of proto-Renaissance style”. “sort of” is a redundant qualification of “proto-Renaissance”, isn’t it?
“From Renaissance to Baroque” needs at least a general reference in there.
The opening paragraph of “Characteristics of Renaissance architecture” is a fair example of where the prose doesn’t flow as well as it could, with quite short sentences.
“The ancient orders were analysed and reconstructed to serve new purposes” is a rather obscure sentence to me. Presumably the ancient orders are classical roman (but why are they referred to as orders? It’s a term that hasn’t been used previously), and the new purposes are those of the Renaissance architects.
The characteristics section needs fuller citation. A single citation at the end, to a book without page numbers given, is insufficient to meet the requirements of WP:CITE (“When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate”). Your footnote says “The list of characteristics below is expanded from a list based on Banister Fletcher.”. If you’ve expanded from Fletcher, does that mean that he is not a sufficient reference for the material? I would imagine that the majority of the section is uncontroversial within the subject, but some appears less so, such as “One of the first true Renaissance facades was the Cathedral of Pienza (1459–62), which has been attributed to the Florentine architect Bernardo Gambarelli (known as Rossellino) with Alberti perhaps having some responsibility in its design as well.”
“The barrel vault, is returned to architectural vocabulary as at the St. Andrea in Mantua.” I’m afraid I don’t actually understand this sentence. I mean, I get barrel vault, architectural vocabulary, and St Andrea, but I can’t parse the sentence.
The section “Influences on the development of Renaissance architecture in Italy” says “It is in Florence that the new architectural style had its beginning”. The Renaissance article says “There is a general — though by no means unchallenged — consensus that the Renaissance began in Florence in the fourteenth century”. As an example of the importance of verifiability, I would take the Renaissance article as being more reliable, as it provides a reference for its claim. Again, this section requires more references; the references that are given need page numbers
Reply Just a quick reply to this one in particular. “There is a general — though by no means unchallenged — consensus that the Renaissance began in Florence in the fourteenth century”. This sentence is about the Renaissance. It includes Philosophy, Art and Culture in general. But, as with other movements, it didn't all happen at once. This cites the 14th century as the beginning of the Renaissance. But nothing resembling Renaissance Architecture happened until well into the 15th century. The first works of Renaissance architecture date to the 1420s and are all in Florence.
So while it's not universally agreed that the Renaissance began in Florence, it is generally agreed that Renaissance architecture began in Florence? Then that's fine. J.Winklethorpetalk 22:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
“emphasis on vertically, the clustered shafts, ornate tracery and complex ribbed vaulting” – something off in that phrase - should that be “vertically clustered shafts”?
Reply should read "emphasis on the vertical, the clustered shaft etc..."
“In the 15th century, Florence, Venice and Naples extended their power through much of the area that surrounded them, making the movement of artists possible.” Was the movement of artists impossible before?
Reply, not exactly impossible.... Let us just say that only one known painter actually made the journey from Naples to Rome, through Tuscany and on to Venice...and survived...
OK, well I'm not sure that this sentence is really saying what you want it to say at the moment...presumably emphasising that improved/safer transport made the flow of people and therefore ideas more common? J.Winklethorpetalk 22:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Prior to the Renaissance, an artist ran a terrible risk just by travelling from Florence to Siena....and you wouldn't go near Volterra unless you were dragged behind a horse.
“Venice controlled sea trade over goods from the East.” requires rewording
Bulleted list in Architectural theory – I believe that WP:MOS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists “Do not use lists if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs” applies here
I stopped noting lack of references after a while; the article is low on specific, in-line references. It's not a matter of the article being correct—I'm sure it is—it's a matter of being verifiably correct. I've fixed the clear grammar mistakes I found as I was going through, and fixed some WP:DASH problems. The featured article criteria I feel need attention are 1a, 1c, and 2. I haven't reviewed for images (3). J.Winklethorpetalk 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments:A good meaty article but IMO it needs more work.
Lead 1: Lead should reflect the body of the article. There are 11 sections in the article and only 8 lines in the lead. I'm not suggesting that each section deserves a line in the lead, but definitely this is too short.
Lead 2: First sentence defines Renaissance architecture as "the architecture of the period beginning between the early 15th and the early 17th centuries...". Surely it's defined by style, not chronology. I'd delete the first sentence and replace it with the second para.
Sections and subsections: To many of them. Drop "Historiography", and remove subheadings - the sections will flow more smoothly without them.
Illustrations: When you've tidied up the structure of sections and subsections, allocate just one or two illustrations to each section - the article will look better, and load faster.
Length: Try to reduce the length. This can be done without deleting anything of substance, just by paying attention to the structure of sentences and paragraphs. PiCo 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: You seem to have nominated a lot of pages recently claiming they are written by architectural historians. I find this concerning as I see no well known architectural historians in the history. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia has to be beyond reproach in its claims - I would like to know who these people are and their proven qualifications (or list of publications) to be so termed. If these facts are not available I don't think the claim of qualified authorship should be made. One thing I will say though on this page is that whoever the architectural historian was who wrote this "Outside Italy, Baroque architecture was more widespread and fully developed than the Renaissance style" has some detailed explaining to do and this statement "The first great exponent of Renaissance architecture in England was Inigo Jones" is not strictly true, there were many great Renaisance houses in England long before Jones came with his more Palladiam ideas, this needs to be emphasisied more. Giano 13:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.