The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC) [1].
A note was left on the talk page in 2013 about lack of citations in lots of places. Looks like not much has changed since then. I just tagged specific paragraphs that need citations; there are probably more specific claims that also need referencing. There are also pervasive problems with tone, sometimes verging or becoming opinionated, so that's a problem with neutrality as well. Some commentators on the original nomination were upset when it passed, especially after the main contributor reverted a large number of edits from others. That undoing seems to have contributed greatly to its tone problems; it's unclear this should have been promoted in the first place. -- Beland ( talk) 00:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply
To further article improvement, here are some phrases that seem rough to me, in the intro and Characteristics section:
-- Beland ( talk) 21:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note to Coordinators - Johnbod, Giano and I have been working on the cites - now doubled since the FAR nomination. We’re very confident that 2020 citation standards can be met, and would ask for some time to complete this. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 18:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply
The progress is now such that a move to FARC should not be necessary; the article is cited, and MOS issues mostly resolved. I was earlier concerned about a large amount of text sandwiched between images, and see only one remaining instance (Palazzi interiors). 'Tis not for me to question any of Giano's prose. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Beland, who initiated the FAR is on board: Close without FARC. Kudos to all! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC) [1].
A note was left on the talk page in 2013 about lack of citations in lots of places. Looks like not much has changed since then. I just tagged specific paragraphs that need citations; there are probably more specific claims that also need referencing. There are also pervasive problems with tone, sometimes verging or becoming opinionated, so that's a problem with neutrality as well. Some commentators on the original nomination were upset when it passed, especially after the main contributor reverted a large number of edits from others. That undoing seems to have contributed greatly to its tone problems; it's unclear this should have been promoted in the first place. -- Beland ( talk) 00:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply
To further article improvement, here are some phrases that seem rough to me, in the intro and Characteristics section:
-- Beland ( talk) 21:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Note to Coordinators - Johnbod, Giano and I have been working on the cites - now doubled since the FAR nomination. We’re very confident that 2020 citation standards can be met, and would ask for some time to complete this. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 18:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply
The progress is now such that a move to FARC should not be necessary; the article is cited, and MOS issues mostly resolved. I was earlier concerned about a large amount of text sandwiched between images, and see only one remaining instance (Palazzi interiors). 'Tis not for me to question any of Giano's prose. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Beland, who initiated the FAR is on board: Close without FARC. Kudos to all! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply