This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The citations for the Pernis and Adams text unfortunately don't include the page numbers referenced. Could someone who has access to that text find the pages to include? 1bandsaw (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Alright I will be picking up the review, both to help out my fellow Wiki Cup participants and to earn points for the GA cup as well. MPJ-US 12:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Second issue found, which warrants a closer look at [this link]
"outside of Florence, especially in the Roman courts. To improve the family's social status, Lucrezia arranged for her son, Lorenzo to marry Clarice Orsini. Clarice's dowry was 6,000 florins. She arrived in Florence" is word for word in both sources.
"Piero di Cosimo de' Medici, son of Cosimo de' Medici, a wealthy banker from Florence." is again in both sources
Site poderesantapia.com does not appear to be a wikia mirror or anything like that. For the article to be passed these need to be changed to not be a straight copy. The first sentence in particular needs to be rewritten. Since the infractions are minor I will not fail the article on the spot though. N
Some of the sections lack a little bit of flow, they're a burst of short sentences than a cohesive narrative. It's not a major obstacle but very clear that it lists quick facts as they were found more than anything
Should not use the contraction "wasn't", should be "was not"
Lead
"two of the most powerful families in 15th-century Italy" would be a good idea to name them.
"Italy and extending" should be "Italy, extending"
"herself" is redundant
Family and marriage
"3 Jun 1444" should be "3 June 1444"
"She and her husband" should start with "Lucrezia" instead of "she"
Political importance
"helped creating bridges", should be "helped to create bridges"
"In 1450 she and" should be "In 1450, she and"
"about, that she" does not need the "that"
"In October of 1467, as part of a rivalry between Piero and Luca Pitti, there was an assassination attempt against Lucrezia and her son Giuliano." I would move the insterted by about the rivalry to the end of the sentence.
"had many grandchildren" is there any way to be more specific? even if it's "more than XX" or something?
Source in the lead, sources should be in the body of the article not the lead.
Lead is too short, WP:LEAD indicates that this size should have 1-2 paragaphs, I would like to see a Good Article aim for the higher number of 2 lead paragraphs.
the manual of style indicates that "see also" sections should be listed before the references.
I believe i have completed my review for now. so I am putting this on hold for up to 7 days to allow for improvements to be made. MPJ-US 18:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
@1bandsaw: - Just a heads up, no activity yet so it will be on hold for one more day. If no activity has taken place by then I will fail it, but if you start to work on it I have no problems keeping the review open longer if you need more time to address issues. MPJ-US 03:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
No activity for seven days. Failing the article for this time round MPJ-US 00:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
