Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sicilian Baroque

Sicilian Baroque

Nominating Giano's masterpiece, the one article that's been calling out to be written ever since he started his series of Featured architectural pages. Long? Yes, but it would surely be destructive to amputate anything here. Note that all the individual architects (listed at the end) have been spun off into their own articles. Special thanks to the photographers Urban (on Commons) and Elgaard, and please bear in mind that Sicily with its stunning architecture welcomes rich American tourists! Bishonen | talk 18:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Wow, those pictures are beautiful. The text needs some work, however. For example "Until recently little studied, recognised or appreciated, in spite of a pioneering study by Anthony Blunt, its Baroque gives Sicily a unique architectural individuality." is awkward. "the newly fashionable neoclassicism" is clever, but the word "newly" isn't doing its job. The sentence "To fully appreciate Sicilian Baroque one has to identify one or more of the above characteristics, then appraise the composition as a whole, and then if the building postdates the late 1720s determine if the architecture has a flowing liquidity in its curves, scrolls and flourishes, which produce the indefinable "joie de vivre"." needs polishing. All this needs, I'd say, is a thorough copyedit by someone familiar with architecture but who hasn't yet read the article to put some of the "liquidity" into the prose and remove some of its "flourishes". I look forward to changing my vote. Jkelly 19:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with Jkelly's comments regarding readability, which is an issue throughout the article. Suggest moving this to Wikipedia:Peer review for a tune-up, then resubmitting for FAC.--Lordkinbote 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above as well. I'll Object until after it has had a good tune-up, but otherwise it is a very fine article on par with your own very fine articles, Bishonen! *Exeunt* Ganymead 04:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

**Comment. There have been some improvements, but there are what I would describe as unsourced aesthetic judgements remaining in the article. I left an example on the talk page. Jkelly 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have replied on the talk page. There are many footnotes, and many references. Giano | talk 22:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Very nice images, but they've got a few problems:
  1. The image Image:Il gattopardo.gif has no source or copyright information.

     Now reuploaded as Image:Visconti56.jpg Is a screen shot, permitted, 1 per article. Giano | talk 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

     Yes, copyrighted screen shots are permitted in articles. They are not required, and I see no reason to use a copyrighted, restricted-use image in what is otherwise a free content article. --Carnildo 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's gone Giano | talk 07:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• 1. The photograph Image:San giorgio ragusa ibla italy.jpg is licensed under the GFDL, but does not indicate who the creator is. It was probably created by the uploader, but this needs to be verified.

     If the uploader says its GFDL that's good enough for me, but I have asked the uploader to confirm. Giano | talk 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• The uploader "Giac" has now ammended this, and credited himself with taking the foto. Giano | talk 08:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• 1. The image Image:Palazzo Biscari..jpg is claimed as "public domain", but does not indicate a source.
     • Its an ancient dog eared print, probably 200 years old, owned by me and about 1000 others who have equally old copies. Giano | talk 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
       • All right, so who was the artist? When was the print created? --Carnildo 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  --Carnildo 20:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would immagine in 1715/16 - like many provicial prints. artists its unsigned Giano | talk 06:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that the description page has that information, it looks good. --Carnildo 07:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support: The article is structurally sound and the pictures are exquisite. I have done some mild copy-editing to try to allay the concerns of those like Jkelly. However, feel free to add more liquidity to it where desired. :) Brisvegas 05:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support- I love the pictures, and I think it is an extroardinary aritcle. I'm not much on the first paragraph though. I'm not fond of the long list. If its neccessary thats fine, but I like prose better. Falphin 20:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I like prose better too, but these distinctions need to be listed clearly in order to stand out from the text, and then be explained in context within that text, and related to the images. Giano | talk 22:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - same grounds as Jkelly. Some particlar sentences demonstating the problem:

1. "Until recently little studied, recognised or appreciated, in spite of a pioneering study by Anthony Blunt, its Baroque gives Sicily a unique architectural identity."

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "The phenomenon that was true Sicilian Baroque lasted barely fifty years, but gave the island an architectural character that was to last into the 21st century."

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "The earliest examples of the Baroque style in Sicily were generally clumsy, ill-proportioned versions of what travelers to Rome, Florence, and Naples had seen."

altered

1. "If the building postdates the late 1720s, it is advisable to determine if the architecture has a flowing liquidity in its curves, scrolls and flourishes, which produce the indefinable 'joie de vivre.'"

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "While each facade of Quattro Canti is pleasing to the eye, as a scheme it is out of proportion to the limited size of the piazza, and like most other examples of early Sicilian Baroque can be considered provincial, naive and heavy-handed, compared to later developments."

This is true Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

OK —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "At this stage of its development, Sicilian Baroque still lacked the warmth, joy, and freedom that it was later to acquire."

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "This is not because of a disdain for the masses, or an indifference to their heritage, but more a bunker mentality; for years subject to punitive taxes, it is only today they and the state are waking up to the possibility that if action is not taken soon, it will be too late for this particular part of the Sicilian heritage"

Changed Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Still reads "For years subject to punitive taxes, it is only today they and the state are waking up to the possibility that if action is not taken soon, it will be too late for this particular part of the Sicilian heritage". POV both with the "punative" taxes and the implicit assumption that the architecture should be preserved.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I fixed a ton of typos, grammar, and style problems, but there are still more to be fixed. Some things to remember: try to maintain the same tense throughout a sentence and, if possible, a paragraph. Don't start paragraphs with "Thus". The previous paragraph should flow into it, rather than it flowing from the previous paragraph. Also, try to cut down on the number of lengthy sentences and uses of "thus". Some of the sentences can convey the same thing with many fewer words. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 00:14
  • Brian, I'm sure Giano appreciates the advice and the genuine fixes, but IMO most of your edits are pure matters of taste that make no difference either way. (I don't want to get into minor squabbling on this page, but a few are actively detrimental, especially some, perhaps hurried, word order changes.) Also, this is a place where people put up their babies for scrutiny; criticism is part of the purpose of FAC, but please be considerate and polite when giving it. I honour your good intention and wish to help, though. Bishonen | talk 01:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • So I don't make the mistake again, which of my changes are detrimental? I went back and checked, and most, if not all, appear to be changes to fix verb use, wordiness, split infinitives, sentence structure, passive voice, etc. You don't have to go through the whole document, but just give me a couple of changes with which you disagree. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 02:12
      • Sure. I'll do it on your Talk. Bishonen | talk 02:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Alright, those were fixed. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 03:05
  • It's really good, but will need more copyediting. Tony 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Truly a masterpiece of an article ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—I've just performed major surgery on the lead. The prose is not yet good enough for a FA. I'll try to come back to it. Tony 03:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I love this article, particularly the way the images are beautifully integrated into the text. Give me time to edit it, please, and address my inline queries. (In particular, why do we suddenly learn that Sicily was ruled by the Spanish in passing, in the list of stylistic characteristics? Isn't this important enough to mention further up?) Tony 05:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment A page failing FAC is always disappointing to its principal editor, and this has failed miserably. That I can endure, it's happened before to me. I've had a lot of good luck here, and a little bit of bad. Taking out a film clip, verifying an image, a little POV etc. no problem. What I cannot endure is the dumbing down of language, and distortion of fact. So I have reverted Sicilian Baroque to the version Bishonen first nominated. It may have some minor style faults but since being here it has been pounced on by a, self appointed, hoard of style editors, (excluding Geogre) who seem to live here, each no doubt well meaning, but in their endeavours to stamp on the page their own uniform style, have altered, albeit, unwittingly the essence of the page. Facts which should be clear are no longer clear, other facts are now misleading or distorted. It is no longer, in my opinion accurate. I have spent most of today trying to clarify changed paragraphs etc. After a further two hours this evening I realise it is hopeless, even as I edit (with an inuse tag) style gurus from FAC are messaging me with their opinions, so I realise they will just return, so further edit is futile. The nominated version was the most accurate and true. If that is not what FA is about, then so be it. That is how I leave the page. I shall edit it no more.

This is obviously (IMO) the path of future FAs, so I shall be writing no more of them. I'm not flouncing off in a huff, (So please no "Oh come back dearest Giacomo on my page" - I flatter myself) I shall be around for ages but working on smaller pages which have no risk of nomination. Just one thought what happens to a page that fails FA, and has been distorted and become false by the FA style edits. Giano | talk 21:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)