Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Biblioteca Marciana/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. 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.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 July 2020 [1].

Biblioteca Marciana edit

Nominator(s): Venicescapes (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Marciana Library, one of the foremost monuments in Venice, Italy. The library is one of the earliest repositories for manuscript in the country and holds one of the greatest collections of classical texts in the world. It is also the only institution founded by the Venetian government that survives and continues to function today.

The extensive article has been critically researched and is a complete resource for the library in the English language, covering the history of the collection and the institution as well as the architecture and art of the historical building. It is currently a Good Article and was peer reviewed (here).Venicescapes (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The images all appear to be correctly licensed. (Keep in mind when you upload scanned documents, such as File:Marciana-catalog-Greek-codices.jpg, that the date parameter is for the original date, not the scan date or upload date).
The images currently do not meet MOS:IMAGELOC, there are sandwiching issues which will have to be solved by removing images.
CEILING OF THE READING ROOM gallery—the reading room and/or ceiling look to be independently notable. The organization would be improved by moving the gallery to a WP:SPINOFF article on one of those topics and leaving a summary here per WP:Summary style. (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the images. I corrected the dates on the catalogues.

The question regarding the placement of images and 'sandwiching' was raised during the peer review. As discussed, I think that this is fundamentally a question of finding an appropriate balance between general guidelines and the specific needs of each article. In this case, the Biblioteca Marciana is … I think by necessity … an image-rich article. Particularly the architectural section relies on images. Many of these … diagrams, floor plans, and architectural details … were created ad hoc and correlated with the text in order to help readers understand the more technical aspects. In my opinion, it would be a shame … and even a disservice to readers … to have to remove those images, and I think the whole article would be impoverished. It seems appropriate to recall the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. "No rules or guidelines are fixed in stone", and “… sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions”. So I think that this is one of those situations when it’s necessary to ask the all-important "one question": Does it make Wikipedia better? In this case, does the removal of essential images (floor plans, details, diagrams) from an architectural description make it better (i.e. more comprehensible) for readers?

Fundamentally, the guideline on ‘sandwiching’ is aimed at avoiding a “distasteful” appearance (which is evidently subjective), and the specific example that is given at MOS:IMAGELOC concerns wider images. I agree that two opposing full-colour images can squeeze and overpower the text in the middle (although this varies on the basis of platform, resolution, and monitor). I took this into account and staggered the images wherever possible so as to limit the amount of text involved (keeping the image as near as possible to the relevant text). I believe, however, that the effect of two opposing images is far less pronounced whenever one of the images is a sketch or diagram which has a white background. In these instances, the page 'breathes' more. With this in mind, I tried to place sketches and diagrams opposite photos/paintings … although this was admittedly not possible in the section on the interiors where there are four full-colour images. But it would be difficult to eliminate any of these since there is in reality only one image for the staircase, for the vestibule, for the ceiling and for the walls of the reading room.

I also did some research and looked at the first 25 Featured Articles in the category of Art and Architecture. On my screen (17" with Crome), 13 out of the first 25 have some amount of text 'sandwiched' between two images. Even Cleopatra, which is suggested by Wikipedia as an example of a Featured Article, has some ‘sandwiching’. Nevertheless, I welcome any further ideas and/or suggestions.Venicescapes (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Hi, Venicescapes, you've done all the right things getting a Peer Review and pinging those who stopped by there about this nom but I'm afraid that with only the images reviewed after two weeks (vital though that is for any FAC) this is a bit of a non-starter so I'm going to archive it. Given the lack of comprehensive commentary I'm happy to waive the usual two-week waiting period before a re-nom; perhaps getting it back to the top of the queue will get more eyes on it next time, and of course you can again ping your PR reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.