![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
Waysider1925 ( talk) 18:49, 20 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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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)
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)
talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 00:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Ceoil Excellent. Thank you. Venicescapes ( talk) 19:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Some minor points;
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)
Re word variation, "collection" appears 54 times in the article. Would use synonyms. Ceoil ( talk) 09:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 - 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
Building
Interiors
Later history
French, Austrian, and Italian administrations
Collection
Additions
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
Waysider1925 ( talk) 18:49, 20 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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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)
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)
talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 00:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Ceoil Excellent. Thank you. Venicescapes ( talk) 19:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Some minor points;
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)
Re word variation, "collection" appears 54 times in the article. Would use synonyms. Ceoil ( talk) 09:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 - 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
Building
Interiors
Later history
French, Austrian, and Italian administrations
Collection
Additions
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)