Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Biblioteca Marciana/archive2

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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [1].

---

Biblioteca Marciana

Nominator(s): Venicescapes (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Marciana Library is the only institution of the Venetian government that survives and continues to function today. Founded in 1468, it is one of the earliest repositories for manuscript in Italy and holds one of the greatest collections of classical texts in the world. The historical building, designed by Jacopo Sansovino, is considered a masterpiece of the Italian Renaissance and contains works by the great painters of sixteenth-century Venice.

To offer Wikipedia readers a complete resource for the library in the English language, one that covers the history of the collection and the institution as well as the architecture and art of the historical building, extensive research was conducted. Texts by international experts were consulted, and numerous architectural-related images, including floor plans, diagrams, and details, were created to clarify the more technical aspects. A complete set of the paintings from the ceiling of the reading room was also included.

It is currently a Good Article and underwent an extensive peer review (here). My thanks to everyone who helped get the article to this point.Venicescapes (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is a phenomenal piece of work. The only issue that immediately jumped out at me was (you guessed it) MOS:SANDWICH, wrt the copious imagery. However. You made a comprehensive—and more to the point, as far as I'm concerned, persuasive—argument against the strict application of that guideline—[2][3]—at the previous FAC. ——Serial 10:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I'm glad you enjoyed it. If there are any suggestions or corrections, please let me know.Venicescapes (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Serial, Thank you again for reading through the article. Are there any changes/corrections that might be necessary to earn your support?Venicescapes (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• I understand what you're saying about wanting a lot of images, but I think a bit of reorganization would help avoid things like displacing headings

I believe you’re referring to the subheadings in the Architecture and Interiors sections. I actually made a conscious decision after moving the images around and trying them in various positions. Basically, because there are several images on the left, some of the subheadings were inevitably pushed to the centre and hence out of horizontal alignment with the others. The result was not very attractive, and I felt that it was graphically better to keep the subheading aligned. So I used the images to force the subheadings into alignment. This, at least, was the rationale.

Given the number of subheadings plus the number of possible screen sizes you're unlikely to get all of them aligned on all screens with that technique - for example on my screen some are pushed centre and some remain left-aligned. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I looked at the page on three different monitors (15", 17", and 24") and thought that it worked. I certainly don’t want to take up too much of your time, but could you please let me know what you are seeing? Which subheadings are flush left and which are pushed toward the centre? On the three computers where I checked, I see all of the subheadings flush left, with the exception of those in the Architecture and Interiors sections (six in all) which are pushed toward the centre and into horizontal alignment with each other. These two sections have the highest concentrations of images. So it is inevitable that some headings will be pushed toward the centre. With that in mind, I forced them all into alignment, but only in those two sections. If it’s critical, I can continue to move images around to see if there’s a more attractive solution.Venicescapes (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Testing on my end, I can see what you see on my laptop, but on my monitor in the Building section the first Sansovino header is centred and the second is left-aligned. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Thank you for looking again. That was not intended. I think I corrected the problem by shortening the caption and lengthening the actual text. The subheading should now appear flush left under the image.Venicescapes (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the caption details warrant sourcing - eg the nomination of Sansovino in 1529

I added references at the end of the captions. There are others that I can add, but I’ll need a few days to get the relevant book.

Nikkimaria, I was able to go to the library (there are only 54 slots each week because of Covid), and I added the remaining references for the captions. Is there anything else that I still need to do?Venicescapes (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Open question on File:Bessarion,_Letter_to_the_doge_and_senate_of_Venice.jpg below. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the images (eg File:Biblioteca_Marciana-construction_plan.jpg) use only colour to convey meaning, which is a potential accessibility concern

I added letters to the images and corrected the captions/legends.

• File:Jost_Amman-detail_from_Procession_for_the_marriage_with_the_sea.jpg needs a US PD tag. Ditto File:Jacopo_tintoretto-diogene-cropped.jpg, File:Bessarion,_Letter_to_the_doge_and_senate_of_Venice.jpg, File:Giusto_di_Gand-Bessarione.jpg, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-1.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-2.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-3.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-4.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-5.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-6.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-7.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-8.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-9.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-10.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-11.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-12.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-13.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-14.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-15.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-16.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-17.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-18.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-19.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-20.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-21.tif, File:Marciana-catalog-Greek-codices.jpg, File:Marciana-catalog-Latin-codices.jpg, File:Bessarion-arms.jpg, File:Martianus_Capella,_Musica.jpg

I added a US PD tag for these. Please let me know if it is correct.

When and where was File:Bessarion,_Letter_to_the_doge_and_senate_of_Venice.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I’m not sure if you’re referring to the manuscript itself or to that particular photo of it. It’s one of three images that I found on Wikimedia Commons (the other two are File:Martianus_Capella,_Musica.jpg and File:VA024RN-0025.jpg). All three are photos of manuscripts. In the case of the Bessarion letter, the manuscript is from 1468. I don’t know when and where the first-ever reproduction of that manuscript was published, nor do I know if that particular photo of it was ever published and, if so, when and where. I could ask at the library, but I’m not sure if they would know.Venicescapes (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Referring to the manuscript itself - just wanting to double-check that it would have met the legal definition of published before 1925. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, My apologies. I thought you wanted to know the age of the manuscript. I'm a little confused in that I'm not sure why the potential problem concerns that specific manuscript and not the other two. All three images are faithful reproductions of 2D documents (one from the tenth century, the other two from the fifteenth century). Would the situation not be equivalent to a 2D photo of a Renaissance painting? I'll be at the library again on Wednesday. Please let me know exactly what I need to ask.Venicescapes (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Which other two? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The other two are File:Martianus_Capella,_Musica.jpg (fifteenth-century manuscript) and File:VA024RN-0025.jpg (tenth-cenutry manuscript). I found all three in Wikimedia Commons.Venicescapes (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. For those other two I can identify a pre-1925 instance of the works meeting this definition of "published". The letter's a bit trickier - are you aware of it having been reproduced in print? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, That is a good question. Certainly, it has been published in recent times. I can ask at the library if anyone is aware of its having been published prior to 1925.Venicescapes (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I found it in a magazine from 1914 (Emporium, Vol. XL, n. 235, p. 73). http://www.artivisive.sns.it/galleria/libro.php?volume=XL&pagina=XL_235_073.jpgVenicescapes (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, suggest adding that information on the image description page and this should be good. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I added the information. Let me know if there's anything else. Thank you for your patience.Venicescapes (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Italy doesn't have freedom of panorama, so images of 3D works should include explicit PD tags for the original works, in addition to the photos

I assume that the observation is in reference to the two interior photos (reading room and staircase). I’m not sure which tag(s) are appropriate since these are 3D works of art. Whatever guidance you can provide would be most appreciated.

This applies also to buildings, but they can be treated like any other artwork with regards to tagging - copyright will almost certainly have expired due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria For the general tag on the images of the staircase and the reading room (in addition to the US tag), I used PD-old-70 which is the only one I could find that did not make reference to a 2D work of art. I hope this is correct. Do the exterior photographs also require tags, other than the photographer’s authorization?Venicescapes (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the same as the sculptural works. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I added the general and US-specific tags for all of the external photographs as well.Venicescapes (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• File:Tiziano-la_sapienza.jpg: under US law reproductions of 2D works don't warrant copyright protection - this should instead have a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Battista_franco,_diana_e_atteone.jpg, File:Marciana-ex_libris-1722.jpg, File:VA024RN-0025.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

For the reproductions of 2D works, I changed the tags. For the 3D works (with frames), I kept the photographers copyright release and added additional tags. Please let me know if this is correct.

Thank you for your time and patience in reviewing the images.Venicescapes (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Hello. I had a few questions regarding the appropriate tags to use (interspersed above). I would be very grateful for whatever guidance you can provide. Thank you again.Venicescapes (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

Have read this a few times in the last few months, and edited directly edited or participated in talk page reviews. The article is a huge achievement; and Support with enthusiasm and a few minor/stylistic quibbles:

• Lead; Do we need il più ricco ed ornato edificio che forse sia stato da gli Antichi in qua

Translations are, to varying degrees, interpretations. Some of the nuances and the tone can’t always be rendered in a different language. So I always prefer to provide readers the original text. I also think the native text adds weight. If you prefer, I could place the original Italian (and the German in the next quote) in separate notes, but I felt that they were not so long as to significantly interrupt the reading. Let me know.

Ok with retaining as is Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Also significant for its art, the library holds many works by the great painters of sixteenth-century Venice - would remove "Also significant for its art"

I'm reluctant to remove this. Without that part, the art seems an afterthought whereas art historians consider the library extermely important.

I think holds "many works by the great painters of sixteenth-century Venice" stands on its own merit, but then I know who they are and which paintings, so ok with retaining for lay readers. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Cathedral and monastic libraries were the principal centres of study - Cathedrals

In this case it’s an adjective. I inserted libraries for clarification: Cathedral libraries and monastic libraries…

The sentence was confusing because of the blue linking. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• His travels to and from Germany - remove "and from"

Rewrote as: His travels as envoy to Germany for Pope Pius II brought him briefly to the city again in 1460 and 1461

• and on 20 December 1461 he was admitted into the Venetian aristocracy - should begin as a new sentence.
• The opening sentence of "Construction" could be broken up.

Done

• consisting in a mixed government modelled along the lines of the classical republics. - should this be "consisting of"; what does "mixed" mean in this context

I looked again at the difference between consist of and consist in. The latter seems appropriate: consist in - to have (something) as an essential or main part. The mixed government is the principal argument to explain Venice’ longevity. But there are other factors.

Mixed government is the technical term. The link should help. Rather than a pure monarchy or a pure aristocracy or a pure democracy, there are elements of each. The theory is that this mixture prevents degeneration into the corrupt forms of government (tyranny, oligarchy, and anarchy)

I don't think you have hit the nail on the head here yet. Do you mean that the element is so named after Serlio described these specific structured. Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Is I don't think you have hit the nail on the head here yet. in reference to the mixed government (here) or to the Serlian (below)? I can look again at either or both.Venicescapes (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, meant the Serlian...below. Ceoil (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried a variation. Let me know if it works better.Venicescapes (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• it was decided that the area of the building facing the palace was to be destined for the offices of the procurators and for the library. "Designated" rather than "destined"

Reworded with reserved for

excellent solution Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• had expressly stated that a perfect library with fine books would serve as an ornament for the city and as a light for all of Italy

Done

• In 1582, following the demolition of the meat market in 1581, Vincenzo Scamozzi was selected - "The meat market was demolished in 1581. The following year Vincenzo Scamozzi was selected.."

Done

• has led some architectural historians to argue that the result could never have been intentionally designed - "could not have been"

Done

• But However archival research and technical and aesthetic considerations have not been conclusive - is "considerations" the right word

Could assessments work?

Ok Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• The upper storey is characterized by a series of Serlians... add (or Venetian windows) - This para is a bit confusing for lay readers....establish what "they" are early on as the following "The element" is singular (The element, inspired by ancient triumphal arches such as - could be 'the elements', or even 'the windows')

Rewrote. Let me know.

• making use of ancient columns recuperated from the sixth-century Byzantine Church - were these the actual columns taken from the 6th c church, or "influenced" by

I rewrote with taken and then inserted dilapidated

• from the sixth-century Byzantine Church of Santa Maria del Canneto in Pola (Pula, Croatia) not sure we have to distinguish, or even mention, Pola vs modern day Pula; why not just "in Croatia."

At the time, it would not have been considered Croatia. I put Istrian peninsula with a link.

• None of these are deal breakers. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Girth Summit

I already gave the article a close read through after its last visit here, and made some comments on its talk page,which have been addressed to my satisfaction - I'm happy to support it now, and congratulate the author on an excellent piece of work. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for reviewing the article and for helping me improve it further.Venicescapes (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Constantine

As a Republic of Venice buff I definitely will check this out. I have no previous interaction with the article, but will read it and make my comments here as I go along over the following days. Constantine ✍ 18:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to review the article. I look forward to working together to resolve any issues that might arise.Venicescapes (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Lede

• a series of military crises and the resulting climate of political uncertainty. The library was ultimately built during the period of recovery unclear when/what the crises and the (presumably subsequent) recovery was. At the very least please add a chronological indication for both.

I added late-fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. That roughly places the events in time. The actual dates of construction are in the following paragraph. I changed crises to conflicts (There were four of the Italian Wars and two of the Ottoman-Venetian wars in that period). Does this help?

• the masterpiece of Jacopo Sansovino -> "the masterpiece of its architect, Jacopo Sansovino,..."

Added

Historical background

• Cathedral libraries and monastic libraries were the principal centres of study and learning throughout the Middle Ages. a bit of inadvertent Eurocentrism: add "in [Western] Europe" somewhere here.

I added in Italy to maintain focus.

• Is the scudo the Roman scudo?

The original text refers only to golden coins (nummum aureorum). Zorzi gives this as scudi d'oro. In neither case is the issuing entity indicated.

• During Navagero’s tenure until when did his tenure last?

I rewrote the sentence to include the inclusive dates.

More to come. Constantine ✍ 18:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Building

• Would suggest adding regnal numbers to the Doges for the readers' convenience. The {{reign}} template should be handy.

I used the reign template as you suggested, but I inserted the label in office. The technical term would be dogado, rather than reign, since the powers were not comparable to those of a monarch. But this could create ambiguity since the same term can also refer to the territory under the earlier doges. I thought in office was the best and most accurate of the available solutions. Let me know.

• Instead of c. or circa, I also recommend using {{circa}}

Done

• into a classical forum link classical and forum

Linked

• of the bell tower clarify that this was the bell tower of St. Mark's

Added

• in the period of recovery I'd say this is redundant; wars cost money, this is well known.

I deleted in the period of recovery since there is already following the ... war. I kept due to lack of funding since there could also be a labour shortage after a war. Is this okay?

• in correspondence to the reading room what exactly does this mean? Is this the same as "corresponding to"? As a non-native speaker, the current phrasing is unfamiliar to me.

Corresponding to/with, in correspondence to/with, and in correspondency to/with (rarer) would be equivalent. Some grammarians argue that there is slight difference in meaning between to and with. At any rate, I rewrote one of them: This brought the building down to the embankment of Saint Mark's Basin and into alignment with the main façade of the mint.

• down to the molo, or embankment, perhaps add to the Great Canal or similar?

Added: ...the embankment of Saint Mark's Basin.

• it is not known whether the architect intended for the library to reach the final length of twenty-one bays contradicts the construction of the final five bays, continuing Sansovino's design statement before. I guess you mean that Scamozzi continued Sansovino's design for the building in general in the sense of its look, but not the specific plans? This should somehow be clarified.

Good call. I specified Sansonvino's design for the façade and changed the second reference from design to plans. Does this help?

Architecture

• Link the various "pagan divinities"

Linked

• Link gothic (I guess to Venetian Gothic architecture would be the most suitable?)

Linked

Constantine Thank you again for your time and suggestions.Venicescapes (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Later history

• Perhaps link the names in Coryat's quote? I doubt many readers will be familiar with who Eumenes of Pergamum was or what the "Ulpian" was.

I added links. For the Palatine Apollo, I created a stub page. From a quick internet search, I noticed that there is quite a bit of information, so it might be interesting to develop.

• Isn't "Directorate" the more usual term than "Directory"?

I checked in International Dictionary of Library Histories where it's rendered as Direction. I changed it.

Collection

• Franco-veneto, and Illyric what are "Franco-veneto" and "Illyric" supposed to be? The former I guess are French-language works made in Venice, and the latter possibly West Balkan Slavic-language works? But as the terms are technical (and in the case of Illyric, idiomatic) I'd suggest explaining them.

I found and added appropriate links. Franco-Veneto would be Franco-Italian. Illyric, in this case, would be Illyrian (South Slavic).

That's it. This is an astonishingly well-written and well-researched article, and an edifying read. Definitely worth FA status. Constantine ✍ 10:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Constantine, I think I addressed everything. If there are other observations/concerns/suggestions, please let me know. Thank you for the review. Given your interest in Venice, I'm glad you found it interesting. Kind regards.Venicescapes (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Venicescapes: did another quick read-through, nothing more to comment on, so I am very happy to support. Constantine ✍ 19:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Constantine, Thank you again.Venicescapes (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Support from JM

I had my say at the peer review after Venicescapes asked if I would act as an FAC mentor. I am afraid I have not been the most attentive of mentors, but I am pleased to see that the article has now attracted the attention it deserves. This article is a very fine achievement, and I look forward to seeing what what Venicescapes produces in the future. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Josh Milburn Your mentorship was actually invaluable, and the article is all the better for it. Thank you again for your time, suggestions, and support.Venicescapes (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Adding to the source review request list for same. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review

This may take some time. Working off this version of the article.

Ceoil, thank you again for your time and willingness to take this on.

• The quality of sources is first rank, and noting that roughly half of the writers used have wiki articles.
• The style used for the sources not a format I'm familiar with, with no, or hardly any, periods used, eg author and work title separated by commas and isbns separated from the preceding element by a space. I've not seen publisher and dating in parenthesis before. However it seems consistent, which is the main thing. Not sure if its MOS compliant, and wile that's not a deal breaker for me, others may have different views

I’ve used the MHRA (Modern Humanities Resource Association) style guide which is very similar to the MLA (Modern Language Association) style guide, the main difference being that MHRA is a superscript system, whereas MLA is technically a parenthetical system. Also, MHRA gives more information to the reader immediately in the short reference. Both systems were specifically conceived for the humanities and use an author-title approach. The Chicago Notes & Bibliography system, similarly used in the humanities, also has an author-title approach. This places the emphasis on the author’s expertise and the subject. These systems also enable complex bibliographical information to be clearly organized, and they group all of the relevant publication information (place: editor, date) together. MHRA does so more clearly.

The various Wikipedia templates tend to generate a name-date citation. The full reference is generally in the APA (American Psychological Association) format (or various hybrids), which is used primarily for the Social Sciences, Education, and Engineering. The name-date system was developed for and is preferred by the sciences and medicine. It places the emphasis on the date of the publication in order to verify currency and relevancy. The formatting can be imprecise, and even inadequate, when dealing with complex bibliographical information, particularly XV and XVI century publications and manuscripts. With regard to the templates, some bibliographical details, important for the humanities, are not even contemplated.

• again the inline citation format Labowsky, Besssarion’s Library…, p. 82 is unusual but consistent. If you get to main page expect mass changes and holy war from well intentioned gnomes, who will probably decide to mass change to a html heavy citation template format, that you will find hard to edit later. For this reason, changing now to a Zorzi (1988), p. 304 format might save heart break and RFCs (I'm not joking) in the future.

I did create an ad hoc tmbox on the talk page that indicates the style used. MHRA is one of the principal styles, and it is appropriate for a humanities article such as the Marciana. So, considering that the use of templates is not obligatory, I'm hoping to avoid a "holy war".

I just noted that I can also use the 'Wikicite' template to link the short references to the bibliography. It would involve a great deal of work. But let me know if it would be helpful/appropriate?

I'm not advocating change, your response to this and the point above are perfectly reasonable. Ceoil (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, I went ahead and added the links between the short references and the bibliography. It should faciliatate consultation.Venicescapes (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• I note that in the list of inline references, in a number of places, Zorzi appears consecutively a large number of times; eg 16-27, 32-37, 165-169, 197-215. This gives pause, however it does seem that these "batches of pages" are being used to cite individually narrow sections of the article, while there are 217 inline citations in total, and I can see that in some instances a number of individual citations could be condensed to a single one giving a range of pages from the source.

• For the record, this is more of an observation, rather than anything actionable, but it may be an idea to state your case here, so it can be reffered to later (again I'm thinking of well intentioned but perhaps mercenary MOS orientated gnomes). Ceoil (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, I may not be fully understanding. Are you saying that notes should be combined?Venicescapes (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No I'm not. For completeness I'm making an observation that some might take issue with, and then refuting a need for change. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, the first group contains references to two separate works, both by Zorzi. So the references could not be fused. For the second two groups, I think that if the references were to be condensed into ranges of pages, the resulting page references would be too broad: pp. 90–102 and pp. 349–367, and pp. 299–391.Venicescapes (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Spot checks: Most of those used are offline/copyrighted, and many are in Italian. If its ok, I might list a request of specific pages to be scanned/phone-cammed and sent to me via email. Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I’d be happy to scan and forward specific pages. Please let me know what you would like to see.Venicescapes (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Great...spot check will be on

• Ref 2 - Howard, Jacopo Sansovino…, p. 28 Backs up - OK, backs up..."the masterpiece of the architect Jacopo Sansovino" Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Ref 9 - Raines, 'Book Museum or Scholarly Library?...', pp. 32–33 - OK, Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Ref 23 - Zorzi, 'Bessarione e Venezia', p. 220 (my wife has basic Italian, and has agreed to help)
• Ref 89 - Lotz, 'The Roman Legacy in Sansovino's Venetian Buildings', p. 8 - OK, backs up re the "Theatre of Marcellus". Ref 1 Hartt backs up remained of the claims. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Ref 147 - Schultz, Venetian Painted Ceilings..., p. 94–95 - OK, Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Ref 185 - Marcon, 'Le segnature dei manoscritti marciani', p. 13 - OK, Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Ref 198 - Zorzi, Biblioteca Marciana, p. 166 - OK, Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I send these to you? Some are pdf and can be sent immediately. Others I'll have to scan. I'll have to go to the library next week for Bessarione e Venezia.Venicescapes (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a mail user function. Either hover ofver my username and use the right click to find the email link, or go to my contribs, and on the left hand sidebar, under "tools" you'll find "Email this user". Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, you should have everything.Venicescapes (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I have Zorzi 220 (?), but I do have Hartt 663 not listed above, which is used 7 times, and each instance supports the claims made. On that basis, and given there was no evidence of close paraphrasing etc found, I'm happy to close the source review as checking out and ok. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil, thank you for reviewing this. I already had scanned the Zorzi note. So, I sent it to you.Venicescapes (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, have Zorzi 220, and checks out. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. --Laser brain (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

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