Talk:Biblioteca Marciana/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

That's not the Marciana in the article's foto. Anybody know what's happening here, with that? --Kessler (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be some sort of vandalism, as the photo clearly isn't of Venice.--Alan (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct pic now linked. --mervyn (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism; it was rather people using unspecific names for their images. A new upload had overwritten the old one. Classical geographer (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"first such law"

There is no source for this claim. On its face, it blatantly mimics the policy of the library of Alexandria. Savidan 13:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of the Building

The article shows some confusion between the Library as a building and as a collection of books. I believe that both Libreria and Biblioteca can in Italian mean either the colletion of books or the room or building which houses them (as can library in English). In this context Biblioteca Marciana is usually used for the collection and Libreria for Sansovino's building, which avoids ambiguity.

I have not as yet amended the article (for want of time) but hope to do so and add references in due course.

Waysider1925 (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

One would hope for a single article encyclopedic enough to cover both the Biblioteca Marciana and the Biblioteca Sansoviniana in which it's housed. Not a genuine "confusion" really, if one avoids dictionary thinking. Biblioteca Marciana, Biblioteca di San Marco, Libreria Marciana, Libreria Sansoviniana, Libreria Vecchia and Libreria di San Marco are synonyms offered at the Italian Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was confusing beause there are two diferent subjects in completely different categories (one is Architecture, the other Bibliography) and the present article tries to deal with both of them. It is of course possible to combine them in one article with clearly differentiated sections, But the title can also be confusing. If I am talking about the building I would usually refer to it as the Libreria or Sansovino's Library, while I would refer to the collection of books as the Biblioteca Marciana. I think that many but not all people would do the same. The names in your llist are all used, but some much more often than others. Some are more ambiguous than others. So, Libreria Sansoviniana would almost always be referring to the building and would be my preferred title for an article about the building, if there is no objection to an Italian title. Biblioteca Marciana would usually refer to the books and it would be confusing if used for the building, especially as many (or most?) of the books are now kept in the Zecca, where the open space in the middle has been roofed in to form the Reading Room. The term Libreria Vecchia (old library) is sometimes used, but can also be confusing as it seems to mean either the original collection of books or (more frequenly?) the grand room on the first floor at the north end of Sansovino.s library buiding. More possible confusion stems from the full title of Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana. I think (subject to correction) that Biblioteca Nazionale is the Italian public library system, Certainly if you turn off the Piazzetta into the National Library (on the ground floor of the Libreria building) it is full of Venetians borrowing and returning books, which is clearly something distinct from Cardinal Bessarion's collection. I have checked in a number of the many books on Venice in my own library and find that most of them index the building under Libreria or Library.. So much for possible confusion, but on a more practical level how can this article be best arranged? My own proposal would be to have two articles, one called either Libreria, Venice or Libreria Sansoviniana, which would only deal with the building, about which there is a lot to say, and the other with the present title, which would deal with the books.There would need to be cross-referencing links. Is there strong objection to this?

Waysider1925 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem all that necessary to me. The topics don't interfere with one another in one article; we wouldn't split form and function of the Vatican Museums either, would we? Maybe you can just start adding information on the collection and the status as a public library, and then see whether it works? Classical geographer (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the name I am concerned about. To me the building is more important than the collection and it seems strange to put the building under a heading which most knowledgable people would (I think) associate more with the books. I do not quite get the analogy with the Vatican Museums where the museuns have always been in the building and form part of it, but the important part of the Biblioteca Marciana is no longer in the Libreria building. I was not intending to write much about the collection of books & manuscripte, not feeling qualified to do so, but I would like to write more about the building. However it may be a month or more before I have time to look at it.

Waysider1925 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I only now notice that you had already mentioned a large part of the collection is actually in the Zecca library. That surely makes things more difficult. Still, with a mention of this fact, the two could still coexist for a while, I think, because the confusion among those who write the article might also be there among those who read and use the article... Classical geographer (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biblioteca Marciana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330183434/http://www.archiviodistatovenezia.it/index.php?id=12&L=3 to http://www.archiviodistatovenezia.it/index.php?id=12&L=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biblioteca Marciana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520174323/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Libraries to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Libraries

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Venicescapes

Johnbod Hello. Thank you again for your assistance. On the Marciana page, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add some information about the dispute (among architectural historians) with regard to the intended length of the building. Also, in the exterior section that you wrote, would it be a good idea to discuss Sansovino's vaunted solution to the Vitruvian problem of the half-metope? Venicescapes (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, fine - the first maybe in its own section at the bottom, unless very short. Maybe the other too. Really this sort of article-specific talk should be on the article talk page rather than here. I'll copy it there & let's continue there if we need to. Johnbod (talk)

Johnbod Hello again. I added the part on the length of the Library. I still need to add something about the half metope.Venicescapes (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, great work. When you're finished we might look at breaking down some of the sections per usual WP style. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod I did the paragraph that explains the corner pier, and it seems to work. There was a good drawing in Wikicommons. There are still several things I'd like to add. Can you give me an idea/examples about the sections as they should be? I was also wondering if it's possible to do a link that leads directly to a section of a page. For example, I linked to ducat, but it would be better if it went directly to the section on the page that deals specifically with the Venetian ducat. Thank you in advance for whatever guidance you can give.Venicescapes (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The last is ducat - If you pick the section from the table of contents, you can pick it up from the address box right at the top, if that makes sense. I think "Historical Background" (ie the library collection) is better below the building myself, as it used to be. Generally the lower sections are getting too long for typical WP/web style, & need sub-heads or splitting. Have you finished adding for now? When you have, I'll take a closer look. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod Thank you for the direct link to the Venetian ducat. It worked. There are still a number of things that I would like to add to enrich the topic. I'll keep you posted and give some thought in the meantime to potential subheadings.Venicescapes (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, there's no hurry. On my screen/setup the main "Building" section takes almost a whole screen. Generally WP style would split that at least once (although many articles overdo the sub-sections). Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod Hello. I broke down some of the longer paragraphs with headings. I also moved some of the information about Bessarion's donation down to the "Later History" section, keeping only what was necessary in the "Historical Background" section to understand the events that led to the building of the Library and explain its existence. I've added a diagram and more information overall but have left the "Later History" and "Manuscripts" sections untouched for now. I need to take a break before tackling those. Can you please take a look to see if something should be added or clarified. I notice that the page is rated as "start-class" on three Wikiprojects (Libraries, Architecture, and Italy). Do you know how the rating system works and how often a page is reconsidered? Thank you and have a nice day.Venicescapes (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, I think I'll wait till you've finished, rather than comment on a moving target. Is that now? Frankly I think the article is now long enough for general encyclopaedic purposes (I've rerated it to B). It would be great to see you upgrading other Venetian building articles - most are actually long on history & pretty weak (if not downright wrong in many cases) on the architecture. Lists like this, which you can generate on any category ("massviews" on the "Pageviews" tab in "View history") are useful for showing where readers are going. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod Hello again. I wasn't sure how the rating system worked, but I'm glad that it moved up the scale. Thank you looking into that. The list of Venetian buildings you sent is intriguing. I'll see which ones I might be able to add to. The other links you sent for page viewers are equally interesting. As to the Marciana, I'd still like to add a section on the actual roundels. But I need to see if I can get some better photos. I could ask at the Library. In the meantime, I added some more on the various bequests (basically who the people were and what they were donating). I suppose some more information on the later history and certainly the current arrangement of the public rooms would be useful. If you have other ideas about what could be added, please let me know. I'll let you know when I think it's ready for a full critique. Have a nice day.Venicescapes (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod I'm going to start working on the Mint and the loggia. I should be able to provide some additional information of note. For right now, I think I've finished with the Marciana. At some point, I'd like to add the roundels with the various proposed titles. But I need to get all of the images first. Do I need the Library's permission to put them on Wikipedia?Venicescapes (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, according to Italian law on national monuments, probably yes - or rather the Ministry of Culture & its local branch. But our servers are in the US & we normally ignore all that & use US law, which on out of copyright stuff is only concerned with any photographer's copyright. So if you take them that's fine (though they won't like flash I expect). It's a fiddly subject. I'll look at this at my leisure. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Mild Bill Hiccup Hello. I was looking over your corrections. If a longer line is preferred between dates and page references, it should be consistent throughout. There are many places where it should be changed. For the capitalization, my intention was to refer to specific places without the extended names; e.g. the Square as opposed to writing out Saint Mark's Square or the Palace as opposed to the Doge's Palace. Please let me know your thoughts.Venicescapes (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

and again

Johnbod Good morning. I added an infobox that covers the Marciana both as an institution and as a building, but I'm not sure if it was created correctly. The "V" and "T" in the bottom right are red. Could you offer any guidance?Venicescapes (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the person to ask - perhaps you are combining another sort of template with an infobox one. Personally I don't like infoboxes on visual subjects. They make the images small & take up too much space imo, but up to you. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod If the UK spelling is preferred, should not the following also be changed: patronised, honour, favour, characterised, popularised, theatre, sensationalised, honour, immortalised, archaeological, civilisation, harmonises, organised, characterised, organising?Venicescapes (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Our policy on this is WP:ENGVAR. Given Oxford spelling, the s/z ones are not a problem. Looking at the history more carefully, I see (from a single "hand-colored", going back to the earliest edits) that in fact the article should in fact use American English, so I will change back the ones I did. My mistake.Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We should be doing this, as article-specific stuff, on the talk page there really. I'll copy & respond there. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Info Box

The previous Infobox was marked for possible deletion since it had been created as a single-use template. It had been created in this manner because none of the existing Wikipedia templates were suited. Subsequently, a contributor changed the Infobox, merging two templates, but the resulting categories were inaccurate for the Marciana and the whole box became so long that it pushed all of the images on the right further down the page and hence out of alignment with the relative text. I have now put the coding for the Infobox directly on the article page so that it does not rely upon a template. If there are any questions or problems, please write.Venicescapes (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

Would there be any quotations from John Ruskin's The Stones of Venice that might prove useful in this article? While quoting Ruskin might not be important for this article to achieve GA status, IMHO it would be important for this article to achieve FA status. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

llywrch I think the suggestion is good, but it would need to be expanded to include other authors. Rushkin's assessment is in volume III (page 322 in the 1890 edition). The assessment is mixed. He objects to the spandrel figures and the enlarged keystones. But the overall verdict is positive. Scamozzi is highly critical of the proportions in his architectural treatise and wanted to 'correct' the height of the Ionic frieze when he proposed adding a floor (fortunately, he didn't get the chance). I'm not sure if Temanza discusses the library, although I suspect he does. I'll do some more research and put together some comments. We could then talk some more. The logical place to add them would be in the architecture section where there could be a subsection "Assessment". Let me know if you find other comments. Thank you for the idea.Venicescapes (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Ruskin's thoughts may be worth adding, but given that this is a very later period for him, I don't really see they are essential, even at FA. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

My intent in mentioning Ruskin's book wasn't so much that Ruskin himself should be included, but to acknowledge that useful cultural criticism was written before present time. IMHO, many articles seem to focus on the opinion/judgment of either our contemporaries or recent contemporaries, while ignoring what individuals of, say, the 11th & 19th centuries wrote. Obviously not all of it would be valid, let alone interesting, & much of it will focus on the "white male elitist" culture the Foundation wants to deprecate. But cultural criticism did exist before Wikipedia came along, & even before the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica notable chunks of Wikipedia content was copies from. -- llywrch (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The lead contains both an historical assessment (Palladio) and a contemporary assessment (Hartt). These are probably sufficient for the lead. Your initial suggestion to add Ruskin is good but probably should be expanded to include several opinions so that a meaningful section could be inserted. As I wrote, this probably should be under Architecture. While the comments may not be essential, they would nevertheless be of interest to some readers. This is assuming that there are enough comments regarding the library specifically. It may turn out that the assessments are more general and concern Sansovino as an architect, in which case, they might be more appropriate on the "Sansovino" page. I will try to do some research and put together some assessments, both historical and non. We can then see what might be the best solution. If you also find some comments, please share them.Venicescapes (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Biblioteca Marciana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 09:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I will be happy to do this review, but ask for a bit of patience since I am usually very busy during weekdays. I will do my utmost to complete the review, which is my first GA review, within a seven-day period.

Yakikaki Thank you very much for your time and willingness to review the article.Venicescapes (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Review

Overall, it’s a wonderful article, and I enjoyed reading it very much. I also learnt a lot from it. A lot of hard work has gone into it, and it’s already very good compared to many other articles you find on Wikipedia. It’s well on its way to formal Good article status, and already fulfills most of the criteria.

There are mainly three areas where I have some concerns and some work needs to be done. It may seem a lot, but I believe that it can be done without too much trouble. I will be as constructive as possible also on my part when considering any proposed changes, so that we together may see the article through the Good article review process with a positive outcome. The article and your hard work deserve it. Also, this is my first Good article review, so it might well be that I've missed or misinterpreted something. Let's keep an open dialogue, therefore.

Now: the first is the lead section, which isn’t really written in line with the Manual of Style guidelines on lead sections. The way it’s written now is in a way that you often find on Wikipedia: it briefly describes the subject, and provides quotations as to why the library is one of the more interesting and important ones in the world. However, according to MOS:LEAD, the lead section “should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points”. So I would encourage a re-phrasing of the lead section. The whole section beginning with “The original building, prominently located…” and ending at “…making it a comprehensive monument to Venetian Mannerism.” could for example be moved to a new paragraph somewhere in the architecture section, under the heading “Appraisal” or some such. The lead should then summarise the appraisal, as well as the content of the other sections. I encourage you to peruse the MOS:LEAD article and look at some other articles with Good article status to get an idea.

I added more information to the lead about the origin of the library. But based on the observations of Johnbod, I'd like to try to maintain the quotes in the lead since they do emphasize the importance of the structure. If you feel other details are necessary, please let me know.

Butting in - personally I wouldn't do this. Fortunately, the lead now is rather too short. This is a longish article and you should expand the lead to 4 paras of reasonable length by summarizing the bits not now covered. For models, I would look at FAs rather than the incredibly variable GAs, especially if you are aiming for FA later. MOS:LEAD doesn't say that the "concise overview" is all that should be there. It does say: "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. 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". Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Btw, the lead says "No less important for its art, the library houses many works by the great painters...". But actually it is very much less important for its paintings than its architecture, and that should be rephrased. You will never find quotes for the paintings comparable to those for the architecture. Making this sort of thing clear is why the quotes belong in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I made some minor adjustments to the lead myself, that I hope you don't disagree with. I think it works very well now. Thank you both Johnbod and Venicescapes for your valuable input! Yakikaki (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki I read through the changes. Some of them are excellent, and I thank you. But I had to move the reference to "Libreria sansoviniana" back. It would be incorrect to use it for anything other than the historical building.Venicescapes (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK, fine by me. Yakikaki (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki I was looking at your edit to the second paragraph of the lead: "The history of the library goes back to 1468 when...". Would it be possible to maintain a more formal tone: "The library was established (or founded) in 1468 when..."Venicescapes (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that it's a better wording. Yakikaki (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The second main issue I have with the article is the great list and enumeration of works of the collections. My assessment is that the three subsections “Manuscripts”, “Biblical Manuscripts” and “Cartography” could be shortened and re-written in prose (or a mix of prose and lists, as with the “History” subsection just above). As it is now, these sections stray too far off-topic and are not in summary style, as I see it. Rather, it would be more reasonable to name some of the most important of these manuscripts, perhaps grouping them together, to give an overview of what the collection holds. A bullet-list of miniscules doesn’t tell the reader what these are or why they are important. You could of course provide opportunities to explore the subject in-depth via wikilinks or a “see also” section or a “Further information” hatnote. I’m also open to other solutions. But as it stands, some kind of re-organisation of these three sections is needed in order to live up to criterion 3b for a Good article (“the article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail”). On the other hand, I would welcome the addition of a short section on the library today. What are their main activities?

I struggled with this. The section on Biblical manuscripts already existed, and I was hesitant to remove it. Also I suspect that those individual pages are not very linked in Wikipedia. I did look at the British Library, the Vatican Library, and the Bodleian Library to see how the manuscripts are listed. A list seems to be the norm. One alternative possibility could be to move all of the lists to a separate article that just deals with the collection. Do you have any further thoughts/ideas?

Butting in again. Another option is to decant the detail to Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Marciana (or "List of..."), just leaving a summary. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I too am wondering if the collection history section (Bessarion's Library and then the additions) would be sufficient for this article and then, as you say, decant the detailed lists into a separate article on manuscripts. One of my concerns is that if we eliminate (for example) the Biblical manuscript list, it could create a number of almost orphan pages that aren't sufficiently linked.Venicescapes (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If they are moved off somewhere else it won't alter their situation. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I leave it to you to decide, but I would be supportive of a move as suggested by Johnbod. Yakikaki (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod Okay. We all agree that the detailed lists should be moved to a new page (everything from the subheading "Manuscripts" to the end). How do you think it would be best to do this?Venicescapes (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Splitting. I would suggest List of manuscripts in the Biblioteca Marciana. One key thing is to make it clear where the stuff has come from/gone to. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki, Johnbod I moved the whole detailed section on the manuscripts to a new page and agree that it works much better, both for the original article and for the manuscripts themselves. Thank you for the guidance. I ended up opting for "Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Marciana" which I felt gives more flexibility for future development. Rather than a "list", it has the potential to evolve into a more comprehensive article. I kept however an image of one of the manuscripts on the Marciana page (Venetus A) so that there is an example of a manuscript from Bessarion's original collection and one from the additions (De nuptiis…). I was thinking that it might be appropriate to say a little more about the collection as a whole at the beginning of the section before delving into Bessarion's Library. Let me know.Venicescapes (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think you found a very elegant solution, and I'm very happy with the way it looks now. It was a good idea to keep something to illustrate the rich collections. Yakikaki (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The last thing I would like to bring up in this review is simply a list of minor clarity issues listed below. I know it may seem a bit discouraging, but I think you will find on closer inspection that it’s small issues that are easily fixed. Feel free to respond under each point as you address these issues, and we can hopefully quickly tick off the list.

• Under the section “Historical background”: in the last paragraph, the sentence “…and other prominent humanists urged the government over time to provide a suitable location…” – I’m not sure whether you with “over time” mean “gradually” or in fact “time and again”? Consider rephrasing this sentence for clarity.

changed to "repeatedly"

• In the same paragraph, a bit later: “notwithstanding a statement of intent”: who made this statement of intent? The government?

added "Senate's"

• In the same paragraph, the sentence “However, with the nomination of Pietro Bembo as gubernator in 1530”, I would welcome a short description in brackets (or in some other brief way) explaining what a gubernator is/was and why it mattered. It could also be good, if possible, with a brief intersection here to explain why efforts were renewed under Bembo – was he particularly intent on building the library?

explained gubernator and added information on Bembo

• Under the section “Building”: the heading “Construction”, in the first sentence: put a short translation or else replace or remove the wording of “renovatio urbis”. Not every reader would understand what it implies.

translation added

• Under the same heading, in the first paragraph, the second sentence, I would remove “antiquated” as a possible WP:PEACOCK word. The sentence works fine without it and you still get the idea of what Gritti was trying to change.

removed

• Under the same heading, the sentence “This would not only satisfy the terms of the donation, it would also bring honor and glory to the Republic as a center of wisdom, learning, and culture.” – is “bring honor and glory to the Republic” a quotation? Otherwise, consider re-phrasing with somewhat more neutral wording (like “…it would also showcase the self-image of grandeur of the Venetian Republic” or similar).

I checked the text of the deliberation and changed the wording accordingly to "special renown"

• Under the heading “Sansovino’s superintendence (1537–c.1560)”, I would again suggest removing “prime” per WP:PEACOCK; its perfectly clear to the reader by now that it is a central and important location.

removed

• And regarding the “prime site”: are you referring to the entire St. Mark’s Square (the Piazza) or to the Piazzetta? It’s a bit opaque to me and I had to read the whole first paragraph a few times in order to understand (I think) what is being described here. Consider using more strict references to the Piazza/St. Mark’s Square and the Piazzetta, respectively, and see if you in general can clarify this paragraph so it becomes easier to read. I think the reason for my confusion is that there is both a reference to the greater urban redevelopment project, and reference to the construction of the library. If I were you I would limit myself to the construction history of the library, while only mentioning as a background that it was part of a wider reconstruction scheme.

deleted "prime" and specified "chosen site for the library"

• In the next paragraph, “the lateral entry of the mint” is a point of reference which the reader has no idea of where it is; it may be an idea to add some more clarity here (perhaps “it extended from the corner of the Piazza to about half ways of its present length” or whatever is correct).

I deleted the reference to the lateral entry to the mint since the work was halted due to the meat market. The entry to the mint would have been engulfed into the 17th arcade regardless.

• Under the heading “Scamozzi’s superintendence (1582–1588)”, avoid the words “chaotic” and “unsightly” as they are not compatible with WP:WORDS. I think you can simply remove them without any loss of meaning.

deleted

• Again, in order to avoid confusion about what the subject of the article is and to comply with criterion 3b of a Good article, I would suggest you to completely remove this part: “However, when Scamozzi built the abutting Procuratie Nuove along the southern side of Saint Mark's Square (begun 1583), he continued Sansovino's design for the lower two floors but added a third story based on Palladio's rejected proposal for the rebuilding of the Doge's Palace after the fire of 1577. This third floor employs the Corinthian order and has rectangular aedicule windows, topped by alternating curvilinear and triangular pediments.” If one doesn’t pay proper attention here, one may believe that it was in fact the library that ended up having three storeys.

I removed the text. It was already present when I began editing the article, and I was hesitant to simply cancel it. However, it could as you note) be confusing, and it's discussed on the appropriate page Procuratie

• Under the heading “Architecture” and subheading “Upper floor” I must before I delve into the criticism first state that I found this particularly interesting, well-written and of unusually high class for Wikipedia. Well done, I'm impressed! However, I’m unsure what the detailed account of the Serlians add? Consider shortening this in order to stay on subject. It may be enough to point out that “The upper story of the library employs the Ionic order and is characterized by a series of “Serlians”, also known as Venetian windows” and then move on.

Are you referring to the sources the Sansovino would have drawn upon for the Serlian? If so, I think it's important to maintain them. The Marciana can interest different readers for very different reasons. Most readers interested in the architectural aspects will want to know where the inspiration came from for certain design elements so as to understand how Sansovino's travels influenced his choices and to place the library into broader developments in architectural history. Please let me know if I understand your observation correctly.

• OK, I can accept that argument and let it be as it is. Yakikaki (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• In the next paragraph, there are a number of architectural terms: egg and dart motif, eschinus, palms and masks in the collar, festoons, putti. Consider for the sake of clarity either adding links to other Wikipedia articles for them, if these exist, or very briefly explaining what they refer to, or limiting yourself to writing that “several details may have been inspired directly by the Temple of Saturn…”. The word “eschinus” is unfamiliar to me and I cannot find it in my dictionary.

added links to Wikipedia pages and a new diagram for the terms that do not have pages ("eschinus" and "collar").

• Under the subheading “Groundfloor” there are some phrases that are not compatible with the neutrality criterion under WP:WORDS: “Much discussed and admired” (by whom?) “implementing various, but unsatisfactory, ideas.” (unsatisfactory according to whom?) and “vaunted” (by whom?). Please address these. The last sentence is fine because it’s clear that it’s Francesco Sansovino who expressed this.

reworded

• Under the subheading “Carvings”, consider explaining or exchanging the expression all'antica; not every English-language reader will understand it.

I deleted the term "all'antica" since there are already references to "classical" and "archeological artifacts" which communicate the idea.

• Under the same subheading, “and gives the building a sense of authenticity.” could be replaced with e.g. “which is intended to provide a sense of authenticity” in order to avoid possible accusations of impartiality in the description. Similarly, replace “and it fully harmonizes with the gothic Doge's Palace” with something less assertive, e.g. “and can be viewed as a kind of pendant to the Gothic Doge’s Palace”.

modified wording

• Under the heading “Interiors” there are again some WP:PEACOCK words. In the sentence “The gilded interior rooms are lavishly decorated with oil paintings by the great masters of Venice's Mannerist period,” I’m afraid you’ll have to get rid of “lavishly” (“decorated with a large number” would be OK I think) and “the great masters”. Again under the subheading “Vestibule”, “clamorous” could be removed without any loss of meaning; a bit further up, “noted” can be removed from before “Italian humanists”. The subheading “Reading Room” contains another “lavish” that is unnecessary.

removed

• I like the table with the roundels but all the works you here refer to should be in the bibliography section (I can’t find Sansovino and Hope; if they are cited within other works, please identify these in a suitable way).

They were mentioned in the note, but I copied them in the reference section.

• Under the section “Collection” and the subsection “Bessarion's Library”, the second paragraph starts with “In 1454, following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks (1543) and…” – what does “(1543)” refer to? Please, if you could clarify this in the text. In the same subsection, in the fourth paragraph it is written “Of particular interest were the Latin historiographers” – why were they of particular interest?

There was an error in the date. It should be 1453. I added … of particular interest "to Bessarion". It's not clear from anything I've read if this is just his own interest, or if he felt the Latin historiographers were essential to complete his library.

• Lastly, there are a few WP:PEACOCK words here too: “Among the irreplaceable treasures are unique scores of operas”, for example. It’s enough to write that they are the handwritten opera scores; this implies that they are irreplaceable in any case.

deleted

• Apart from these points, I have also a minor issue regarding the pictures in the article. Overall, these are excellent and used to illustrate the points in the article, but in one case two pictures (Actaeon and Diana and Minerva between Fortune and the Virtues) re-appear later in the part on the ceiling of the reading room. I would remove them as they somewhat clutter the article and since they appear again further below, are not really relevant to the article as basically being duplicates.

I can remove them, but unlike the roundels in the table, they show the grotesques and the gilded framing, giving a sense of the richness of the ceiling. I did add information in the text about the grotesques and the gilding.

• A compromise could perhaps be to keep one of them? That would suffice to give the context of the roundels. We should be wary against overcrowding the article with images, in my opinion. Yakikaki (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the roundel by Salviati and kept the roundel by Franco, specifying that he also did the grotesques.

The 12 pictures in some kind of gallery format just under “Oriental languages” are also not relevant to the article all of them. If any of them should be kept, it should be explained why it’s of particular importance (there are many, many beautiful pictures of manuscripts from the library but for them to appear in the article there must be a reason connected to it beyond just being kept there).

This was resolved by default when the whole section was moved to a new page.

Kind regards and I hope I haven't discouraged you with this, Yakikaki (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki Thank you for the considerable time and effort in reviewing the article. Some of the corrections/changes are quickly done. Others will take time. A few will require more research. I'll intersperse comments above.Venicescapes (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki Hello. I did some initial work but have some questions. If you have time, please take a look at my comments/questions in yellow. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• I promise I will, I will have time tomorrow evening hopefully! Seems to ge going great! Yakikaki (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• I've tried to answer your questions and comments, let me know if I missed anything. We're rapidly getting ahead, thanks for addressing my concerns promptly and in an excellent way. Yakikaki (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki Thank you again for all of your time and attention. I think there are two items remaining. (1) I'm working on moving the lists to a new page. (2) When the Library reopens (hopefully on Monday), I should be able to do some more research and rewrite the paragraph on the corner pier. Were there other concerns that I should address?Venicescapes (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Frankly I think some of the de-peacocking is going too far. The building is universally recognised as Sansovino's masterpiece, & it it rather shortchanging the reader not to tell them this. Equally it is famous, and important, for the lavishness of its decoration. How to split the MS covered above. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Venicescapes thank you. Those are the only two remaining issues. Thank you also Johnbod for your comments and helpful input to the article and the review. As to your concerns regarding the "words to watch" I am unable to interpret the Manual of Style in any other way, given the example and words listed there. I disagree with your viewpoint and I believe on the contrary that the article has gained in clarity by the use of somewhat more neutral language. The message about the importance of the building still comes across. Yakikaki (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm unimpressed! Neither lavish nor masterpiece are actually on the list. The policy says: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors.[2] Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." - my bold. WP:PEACOCK used to be a necessary policy 10 years ago, but then became overused & now a reference to it tends to be a red flag, at least as far as I'm concerned. THat page begins: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias.... The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm just trying to follow the assessment criteria from GA. The criteria specifically demands that the article should comply with MOS:WTW; whether or not it's overused now or was more important ten years ago I have no idea about. I'm just trying to do my job here. The list of words at MOS:WTW is also clearly indicative, not exhaustive. Having said that, I wouldn't oppose to a formulation such as "is widely considered to be" or something similar, as long as there is a citation. But I do believe that the best way to illustrate the importance of the building to the reader is, as it also says in the sentence you quoted, to demonstrate that importance. But as I stated also before, I'm open to concrete, fruitful proposals for compromise. What exactly do you think should be kept or improved, and how? Yakikaki (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki This might be a happy solution. Johnbod is correct that the Marciana is considered Sansovino's masterpiece. So, we could insert "is considered to be" followed by a note. I already have Howard's reference but will need to go back and check Morresi's book. We should be able to find others.Venicescapes (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Venicescapes, Johnbod, that sounds like a good solution to me. I'm happy we could find a solution. Yakikaki (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki I'm sure everything will work out. I looked at a few of your edits. The page that you linked to (Greek scholars in the Renaissance) primarily concerns the academic world around the University of Padua and elsewhere in Italy. To a limited extent, it overlaps with the community of Greek refugees in Venice to which Bessarion was referring in his letter of donation. But we're really talking about different groups of people and also slightly different time periods. It might be useful, however, to add a "see also" at the top of the section since it is an important, but parallel, development. I noticed that you changed "eschinus" to "echinus". But I looked at several architectural sources (both historical and contemporary)that show "eschinus" (see https://books.google.it/books?id=anGPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT69&lpg=PT69&dq=eschinus+capital&source=bl&ots=A65DdrL1Tg&sig=ACfU3U2VIStl8egFrKs7Ov_5nOosFC7xLQ&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio95TTvvLnAhXLeZoKHW-MCgIQ6AEwC3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=eschinus%20capital&f=false and [1])Venicescapes (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the wiki-link to the Greek scholars article is perhaps superfluous, I don't mind if it's not there. I did however notice that it mentions our friend Bessarion, that's why I put it there. Eschninus seems to work just as well as echinus, then; I simply couldn't find the term in my usual reference works, but instead (in Merriam-Webster) as "echinus" with the same meaning. Either is fine, then. Yakikaki (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki I changed Greek scholars to a "See also" and moved it to the section on Bessarion. I think people interested in that section will be most inclined to want to learn more about how he fits into a larger picture. It's an interesting page. I'll work on splitting off the manuscript section tomorrow.Venicescapes (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki I do see the option of "echinus" in some books which is actually faithful to the original Latin word. So, I agree that it's better to write it as "echinus". On the page "Ovolo" (to which I linked), it's written as "echinus". It is possible that "eschinus" is the result of an intial copy error that has been perpetuated in some texts. It does happen. I'd have to do some philological research, but I don't think it's that important.Venicescapes (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I see! Well, in either case I'm fine with both since both seem to be used in English, so it's up to you which one you prefer to use. I don't think much will be gained by diving deeper into the question here. Yakikaki (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki Greetings from Venice. I just found out that they've extended the closure of the public buildings, including the library. So, I won't be able to do research for another week. Is this a problem? In the meantime, I added an image which should make the stages of construction a little clearer for readers.Venicescapes (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Good evening, Venicescapes. For me it's not a problem, but I also think this isn't a big enough concern to stop the article from passing the review. The guideline for reviewing state that ""The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight" and with that in mind I think it would be wrong to let this stop the review. I can accept in good faith that the solution in fact was much discussed and admired; it sounds plausible and reasonable. Once you do manage to find out more details about it, perhaps you could add a few words afterwords. So I'm going to let the article pass now. I also hope life isn't too difficult for you there, with all these measures taken because of the virus? I hope you are not too much affected. Best regards, Yakikaki (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yakikaki Thank you for all of your work and valuable suggestions. I think the article has gained in the process. Thank you also for trusting me to implement the final changes. I need to adjust the paragraph about the corner pier and implement the "considered to be masterpiece" solution for the lead. I want to get a few more sources first. My hope is to eventually get the article to FA. If you have any thoughts or ideas as to what should be added, please let me know. If you're interested in reading further, I also did the Procuratie, Zecca, and Loggia.Venicescapes (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Architecture

Johnbod Hello, do you have any idea why the Biblioteca Marciana is not showing up here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Architecture&importance=Mid-Class&quality=GA-Class or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture#Good_articles? Also, do you know how to get the Architecture Portal to assess the importance? I'm assuming it's either Mid or High, but I don't see any guidelines for assessing at the portal. Thank you for whatever guidance you can provide.Venicescapes (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I presume it needs adding manually at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture#Good_articles. I think it will show up eventually on the other list. I've made it "top" importance - one of 360. Johnbod ([[User

talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 00:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow. I never expected "top". That's great. I also added Visual Arts. Can you also evaluate that as well? In addition, I'm attempting to add automatic archiving (some of the threads are really old). I think I did it right. We'll see what the bot does.Venicescapes (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Another question for you. I'm wondering if the Marciana would fall under the scope of the Historical Site project. Technically, all of Venice is a World Heritage Site. Your thoughts?Venicescapes (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Much better to avoid that, or you get one of WP's worst infobox types, cluttered up with totally useless info. VA doesn't do "importance" ratings, very sensibly. Don't get too hung up on these trinkets, which really don't affect anything at all. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

That helps. Thank you. We can do without VA and Historical Sites.Venicescapes (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You should have VA, imo. But none of these projects matter too much. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. It's back. Thanks for the clarification. Venicescapes (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits

Ceoil Excellent. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Some minor points;

• "correct and erudite" is opinion and should probably be attributed

I rewrote this to elaborate on what constitutes the correct use (basically each order with its proper frieze, cornice, and base). I also verified the reference.

Yes, saw that. Very skillfully done. Ceoil (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Similarly, should "vexing problem" be in quotes

It's paraphrased from Sansovino Jr., but I deleted "vexing" since it's already implied.

• Some of this could be trimed or moved to notes - "so-called because the architectural element was illustrated by Sebastiano Serlio in his seven-volume architectural book Tutte l'opere d'architettura et prospetiva, a guide for architects and scholarly patrons that explained the principles of Ancient Roman architecture as outlined by Vitruvius in De architectura.[77][78]"

This is more difficult to change. You are correct that it could be moved into a note. But it's the first reference to Vitruvius and the first opportunity to explain "Vitruvian". If I remove it, I need to explain "Vitruvian" in the second paragraph of the "Ground Floor" subsection which would become the first reference. However, that paragraph is rather complex as it is. I'm open to suggestions.

I think you can convey all that in less words. As it stands, I became lost in the digression and forgot what I was originally reading about. Ceoil (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I still need to address this.

I moved the information down to the section on the corner pier. I think it works.Venicescapes (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• The upright structural axes, consisting in the succession of columns and pedestals, become progressively lighter. - Unable to parse "consisting in the succession of columns and pedestals", presumably "in" should be "of", but not sure, so don't want to change. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. It should be "of". I fixed it.Venicescapes (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

There is one change I'd ask you to reconsider. In the lead, I wrote: Also significant for its art collection, the library.... You changed it to: The library holds a significant art collection.... My rationale was to introduce some variety. The sentences in that paragraph tend to begin: The original library building..., The Renaissance architect..., The art historian....Venicescapes (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course. Ceoil (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence containing the phrase "prominently located in Saint Mark's Square" lacks precision. For a casual reader, every inch of the Piazza San Marco is prominent. Is it facing the main walkway entrance? Otherwise may be drop "prominently".

I deleted prominently.

• Re Superposed order, the wording around "a succession of Doric columns supporting an entablature and is superimposed on a series of arches resting on pillars. The combination of columns superimposed on an arcade", this may be very hard to parse for most people.

I switched this to layered over.

Re word variation, "collection" appears 54 times in the article. Would use synonyms. Ceoil (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I managed to reduce collection to 35 times.

• I have *really* enjoyed reading this article; it is one of the strongest have seen as a potential FAC. Well done indeed. Ceoil (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for going over this again and for reassuring me about its validity. I was a little shaken when it received no attention at FAC. I'm planning on waiting until September for a second attempt and will let you know when I do. Kindest regards.Venicescapes (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, and look forward to then. Basically I will reference this perhaps ramshackle review, when closed out, as the basis for an informed (I hope haha) support. Even though I am seemingly nitpicking, rest assure its, from my perspective, rearranging the icing on the cake. If I have further quibbles between now and then (unlikely, I think we are now down to stylistic preferences) we can sort out here beforehand. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

FAC Nomination

Johnbod, Yakikaki, Josh Milburn, Rcsprinter123, Ceoil Greetings from Venice. I made some final additions to the article on the Marciana and just nominated it for FAC. So it seemed like the most appropriate moment to thank each of you for your guidance and contributions in getting the article to this point. I’ve learned a great deal from all of you and am very grateful.Venicescapes (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Update

Johnbod, Yakikaki, Josh Milburn, Rcsprinter123, Ceoil, Girth Summit, Hello everyone. The Marciana doesn't seem to be piquing any interest at FAC: it's now only six positions shy of the "Older nominations" subsection, and there's only been an image review. Most of the more recent nominations already have multiple comments. Perhaps the topic is uninteresting or too out-of-the-mainstream. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I could breathe life into this?Venicescapes (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Venicescapes, I'm sorry to see it's not generating a lot of feedback yet. My very brief experience with Featured List nominations is that this is not unusual at all, I think it's less a question about a lack of interest and more a question of finding people who are ready to dedicate themselves to improving articles which aren't their own. (The article has an average of 90 viewers each day, which is quite a lot.) As all of Wikipedia is based on voluntary work, good reviewers who are willing to take on articles which they haven't contributed to are few and far between, sadly but quite naturally. So I don't think it's a because the article about the library isn't generating interest, I think it's a question of that there's a threshold to overcome in reviewing. Having said that, I could also add a personal reflection: while I think it's a tremendous achievement to get an article to Featured Article status, I think sometimes Good articles are more enjoyable to read. The FA process is also about making the articles more streamlined and they tend to be shorter and less detailed. As someone who enjoys quite detailed information, I often prefer to browse the GA section, to be honest. Well, those are my five cents on the subject. But please don't be discouraged! I honestly think you are one of the users on Wikipedia who writes the best and most interesting articles on architecture, and to improve the articles on Venetian architecture is frankly a way of making the world a better place, the way I see it. It's incomparably beautiful and incomparably important. Best wishes, Yakikaki (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with all of what Yakikaki said, but getting it to FAC will increase viewership, at least in the short term. The writing is excellent throughout, far, far better than the average nomination; only issue can guess at would be sentence length, often a bug-bear at FAC, though i think its ok here because you are not bolting together a series of random factoids. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Further update

Johnbod, Yakikaki, Josh Milburn, Rcsprinter123, Ceoil, Girth Summit, One of the FAC coordinators just wrote to let me know that he decided to archive the nomination due to lack of interest. I can renominate it, but I'd like to try to understand what went wrong before I do. Again, I would appreciate any suggestions.Venicescapes (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, the only thing that went wrong is that people seemed to have missed that it had been nominated. For the times have looked at this article, it looks very strong and an almost certain eventual pass. You you can muster enough people to agree to comment here, and 2nd round nom would be great to see. I will certainly look. Ceoil (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear! It's most likely to be the time of year if you ask me. I think it has been archived rather quickly, & could ask for it to be reinstated, but it might be better to wait a few weeks. FAC is generally very short of reviewers at the moment. One thing you could do is build up both experience & goodwill by doing some reviews yourself. As pointed out above, it gets more regular views than most FAC candidates. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod My thought is that it might be better to wait until September, after the summer holidays. More people might be active. I'll also do some reviews as you suggest. I'll keep you posted.Venicescapes (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A huge amount of people, in the UK & IRE for eg, are taking holidays as restrictions are easing. Ceoil (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see this get archived. My hope was that getting a good few people involved in advance (i.e., the people you tagged!) would be helpful. I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to visit the FAC; I don't have as much Wikipedia time as I used to. I do think that doing a little reviewing yourself could be helpful, as suggested above, but there's no secret weapon. (Or if there is, I haven't found it.) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Venicescapes, to have arrived late to the party. I was away on holiday last week, but sat down today to give the article another read through and comment at the FAC - disappointed to see this. Do please let me know when you re-nominate it, and I will do my utmost to comment next time. (I'll give it a read through now so I have some preliminary thoughts ready to hand!) GirthSummit _(blether) 08:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

GirthSummit It was indeed a diappointment to see it achived so quickly. It only had an image review. I plan to renominate it in early September when most people should be back from vacation. I thank you in advance for your willingness to comment. Best wishes.Venicescapes (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, in case you didn't notice, I left another (longer!) comment at the bottom of the page. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

GirthSummit I saw it later. Your observations are good. I'll work through them and make the changes. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Girth Summit

Venicescapes - apologies once again for being so late in this. I think it's an absolutely excellent article; its size made the task of reviewing it seem a little daunting, but I'm sorry I allowed that to make me put off doing it until it was too late for the first nomination, it really is outstanding and it deserves attention. I've now read through, and made some notes - all of them are suggestions for your consideration, rather than changes that I think are absolutely necessary in order for it to be an FA. I thought about waiting until you renominate it, but have decided just to put them here now - I may refer back to them, and any response you make to them, when I comment on (and support, I am sure) its renom.

Historical background

• paragraph 6: "favour access" Is favour the right verb here, would facilitate or enable be better? (To my mind, you have to favour one thing over something else, and I'm not clear what the something else is in this context.)

Good call. I changed this to facilitate.

Building

• paragraph 1: 'relative loss of political ascendency': is ascendency right? Stature, power, supremacy?

I looked at the definition for each word. Ascendency, in the sense of controlling influence, seems to be closest. Venice doesn't totally lose stature or power, and it never had complete supremacy. I can give it some more thought.

I think the point may be that a lot of people (incorrectly) associate the word with rising (on the ascendency) rather than its strict meaning. Ceoil (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed this to the republic’s relative loss of political influence...Venicescapes (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Image of the Ionic capital: is the superimposition of the letters A and B really the best way to refer to the different parts? The letters are quite hard to see, but if you made them bolder they would obscure the (excellent) image further. Can we ditch them and instead refer to the colours or, if that creates accessibility concerns, say something like 'shaded areas above and below'

I redid the image without the letters. It works better.

• Is there any way to get a photograph that includes of Sansovino's solution, to enhance the (also excellent) line drawings?

I'm not sure I could fit it in. Actually, the only comment at FAC was the image review which said it was necessary to remove images in order to avoid 'sandwiching'. See discussion here.

• "...and no large areas of plain wall are visible" - do such areas exist? If not, rather than 'are visible', should we simply say 'there are no large areas of plain wall', or 'there is very little surface that is unadorned' or something?

I reworded this as you suggested.

• "correct use of Doric and Ionic" - what does 'correct' mean, in this context? The next sentences say it's not always compliant with Vetruvius.

I rewrote this: In addition to the abundance of classical decorative elements – obelisks, keystone heads, spandrel figures, and reliefs – the Doric and Ionic orders, each with the appropriate frieze, cornice, and base, follow ancient Roman prototypes, giving the building a sense of authenticity. The proportions do not always respect Vitruvian canons.

• Doge's palace - in the map of St Mark's Square, it's labelled the Ducal palace - should that be changed to maintain consistency within the article?

I changed this.

Interiors

• First sentence - "always only on the...". Always feels slightly awkward here - not sure what would be better, 'Since its creation' or 'From the outset' or something?

It really wasn't necessarry. So I simply deleted it.

• The paintings mentioned early on - can we clarify whether these are hanging like pictures in a gallery, or actually inserted into the walls (in a similar way to how we describe the roundels)?

Today, they are inserted into the walls. This is following the restoration in the 1920s. There's no way no know whether they were inserted into the walls or simply hung on the walls in the past.

Later history

• Would it be possible to have some clarification early on in this section to explain the distinction/relationship between the librarian and the custodian? I can see that they're not the same person, and their roles are discussed, but a clear statement at the beginning might help the reader understand this section.

I think I clarified this. I also included the attendant who together with the librarian and custodian formed the staff.

French, Austrian, and Italian administrations

• Paragraph 3 - printed by local editors - is 'editors' the right word? (Very Wikipedian!) Should it be publishers, print houses, or similar?

I changed this to publishers.

Collection

• favour/facilitate again

Changed

• "The invitation of the Senate in 1650 to allocate funds..." What does this mean? Were the Senate invited to allocate funds, or did the Senate invite someone else to allocate funds? Was the invitation declined, or did it just get ignored?

I rewrote this: Similarly disregarded was the Senate's decree in 1650, requiring that the procurators allocate funds annually for the acquisition of new books.

• Around what time did enforcement of the law requiring the deposition of books begin, making the law more effective?

It's from the early eighteenth century. I rewrote the sentence.

• Last sentence of p1 - "unrelated interest... ...focus of the overall collection" - can we say what the focus was at this point in the article - what subjects were they getting rid of, and what subjects were they trying to collect?

I rewrote this. The text I have simply mentions books of cultural interest, without further specification. At the end of the section, I did write that the collection remains focused on the classics, humanities, and Venetian history.

Additions

• Link Inquisition to a suitable target (Inquisition, unless there is a more specific one).

Linked. This, however, made me realize that there should eventually be an article on the Venetian inquisition which was controlled by the state.

As a complete aside, the Renovatio urbis would probably be a great subject for an article. That's it for me - again, sorry for being so late in this. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made some initial changes. Others will require some more time. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Renomination at FAC

Johnbod, Josh Milburn, Rcsprinter123, Ceoil, GirthSummit, Hello everyone. I'm planning on another attempt at FAC towards the end of August/beginning of September. I'd like it to coincide when more people are available. Do any of you have plans for holidays during that period? Thank you again for all of your contributions.Venicescapes (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I will make every effort to find time to contribute -- best of luck with it! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I see you're doing a couple of GA reviews, which is good, but I'd do some FA ones too (as advised above). If you start with articles that have already had a number, there may not be too much to add. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I will be on holiday, but having read through it and carefully already and made the comments above, I'm confident that I'll find time to weigh in. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. Best of luck with it. Ceoil (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, Yakikaki, Josh Milburn, Rcsprinter123, Ceoil. Hello everyone! I resubmitted the FAC and have my fingers crossed. Hopefully, it will get some attention this time. Anything that you can do would be greatly appreciated.Venicescapes (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Off to a good start - I've edited the article too much in the past to be able to review, but I hope it passes, Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod That's a shame. I'll have to be content with your moral support.Venicescapes (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering how this actually works. How is it ultimately determined? Is there a certain number of "supports" that is required? Also, the first person who looked at it wrote positively but didn't actually say 'support'. Does his comment have weight, or should I ask him outright?Venicescapes (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

FA

Johnbod, Yakikaki, Josh Milburn, Rcsprinter123, Ceoil, Constantine, I wanted to let you know that the Biblioteca Marciana was promoted to FA. Each of you was of great help in improving the article and helping me through the entire process. So I also want to take a moment to express my gratititude to all of you for your time and expertise. For me, it has been a positive learning experience.Venicescapes (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Venicescapes: Congratulations; this is thoroughly deserved. I know that FAC can be a gruelling and unsatisfying experience, but it can also be a deeply rewarding and educative (in the good way!) experience. I hope it was the latter for you; and I do hope we'll be seeing your name around FAC in the future! Keep me in the loop! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Venicescapes: Congratulations! It was very well deserved! Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding congrats for all, - sorry I missed the FAC, but I see it was in the best hands ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Map

Sheila1988, Good Morning, you recently edited the Biblioteca Marciana article. Please know that the infobox was a collaborative effort in October 2019 in preparation for FA nomination and that it was specifically decided to not include any map: you may have seen that the parameter is marked no. The coordinates are already present. With regard to the addition of Piazza San Marco, it is necessary to maintain consistency. The article uses the English name, Saint Mark’s Square, throughout.Venicescapes (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the English name, though? Saint Mark's Square (full name), or St Mark's Square (UK English), or St. Mark's Square (U.S. English)? In those cases, I stick to the original. Same for St Mark's Campanile, btw. - Why prefer UK over US, and mix English and Italian in a title? I don't think Campanile di San Marco would be misunderstood. - In this article's infobox - which I like a lot! - I'd give both Italian and English in the first lines, while right now we have a third name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The editor in question used the Italian name for the square, which does not appear in the article. It should be in English for consistency. I've used the full name when referring to the square (that also avoids the St or St. question).

The title of the article on the bell tower was already 'St Mark's Campanile' when I started editing (the article is UK English with Oxford spelling). I saw no reason to change the title since Campanile has entered into English: there's even the English plural campaniles in the dictionary. I'm not sure what you mean by a third name in the info box of the library. Can you elaborate?Venicescapes (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Pedantry about Venetian institutions

Hello! This is a great article, but I feel compelled to nitpick some wording in the lede (which is also on en.wikipedia's front page, right now). I won't remove it directly, because it's underpinned by a source, but maybe we could agree on better wording? Apparently, the Biblioteca is "the only official institution established by the Venetian government that survives and continues to function". Really? The glassworks on Murano are still running, 730 years after they were ordered there by the Council of Ten; several scuole (which started as state-sponsored confraternities) are still functioning, and the Scuola Grande di San Marco continues as a hospital; there's a Venetian-founded theatre on Corfu (formerly a local admin building) which is still running plays in Greek in the 21st century. Almost all the institutions of the Stato da Màr have ended, but I'd be very surprised if none of the towns around the Adriatic still use a town hall, market, fort, harbour &c which was originally founded by Venice. Could we tweak the wording, maybe? bobrayner (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And on a lighter note, the Fondaco dei Tedeschi is still full of merchants. :-) bobrayner (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I know nothing about Venetian history, but I think the article is referring to the library as an institution/organisation, not simply as a building, place or commercial activity of a certain type.--JBchrch (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

bobrayner, we can certainly explore ideas for better wording if needed. JBchrch is correct that we're talking about an institution that was part of the Venetian government, established, in this case, by decree of the Senate. It continued as an official institution after the fall of the republic and simply passed from one administration to the next — French, Austrian, Frech, Austrian, Italian. None of the items you mention — glassworks, theatres, town halls — fall into this category. The Great Schools were approved by the government, but their charters were a private initiative.Venicescapes (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Post TFA

Aza24, SaltySaltyTears, ClueBot NG, User3749, CommanderWaterford, Deauthorized, YouKnow23, Ashleyyoursmile, Materialscientist, IronGargoyle, I wanted to thank all of you for patiently following the article on the Biblioteca Marciana throughout the day and helping to immediately revert vandalism.Venicescapes (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Venicescapes, you're welcome. :) I requested semi-protection yesterday which has since been granted by admin Deepfriedokra. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help; congratulations on 41k views!. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits to infobox

HapHaxion, good morning. I reverted your edits to the infobox of the Biblioteca Marciana for two reasons. The infobox is divided into two sections, the first concerning the institution, the second the building. So, the information added on the construction was in the inappropriate section. It's covered further down. If a precise date for the establishment is desired (not necessary in the infobox), it would have to be the formal vote of the Senate on 23 March 1468.Venicescapes (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

HapHaxion, good morning. I noticed that you again added dates to the infobox. Please bear in mind that at present, the 23 March 1468 date does not actually appear in the text of the article. So, if you want to add it, it would be necessary to first expand the text and source it. I intentionally avoided several dates so as to not overly complicate the history. Basically, the act of revocation of the donation to San Giorgio already mentions Bessarion’s intention to donate his collection to Venice. There was then a series of informal negotiations, largely between Bessarion and Morosini. The Senate voted to accept the gift and established the library on 23 March 1468, although some aspects were decided on 2 May. The act of donation was 13 May 1468 (some texts date it 14 May). The formal letter of presentation was dated 31 May 1468. Legal possession of the manuscripts was on 28 June 1468. Personally, I think that this is far too detailed for the infobox, and I'm not sure what the criterion would be for choosing one date over another. The date of 1468 is sufficient. But, again, if you feel that all of this is needed, it would be necessary to first expand the article and source everything. The infobox should not contain information that is not substantiated in the text.Venicescapes (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)