Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sicilian Baroque/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC) [1].

---

Sicilian Baroque

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sicily, User:Giano, User:Bishonen, User:Tony1, User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Attilios, User:jbmurray, User:Hoary

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)

The referencing is certainly 2005-style, but no very outrageous statements seem to be made. I don't agree that tone is a problem - the article is far better written and informed than most of our architecture FAs (unfortunately that's not saying all that much). Tony1 was cross with the nom, but that's not rare. It's 15 years since the FAC, and various editors have in fact worked on the prose quite a bit. A bit of time adding refs from a couple of the dozens of books on the subject would sort it. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Let the star go. Apparently, this needs reffing: “ Baroque characteristics, such as broken pediments over windows, the extravagant use of statuary, and curved topped windows and doors are all emblematic of Baroque architecture, and can all be found on Baroque buildings all over Europe.[citation needed]” I don’t think even the best architectural text books reference the obvious. Giano (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, the more basic ones do. Baroque for Dummies or something. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The content is great but we've got a lot more anal about sourcing since 2005. I tried to help it about 7 years back but it's not the best of ideas to try to patch up something not knowing all of the original sources used to write it. It looks to me like it could be salvaged and worked on in a sandbox and Giano update it but if he's not motivated to do it I can hardly blame him!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Let it loose the star, and I will ref it when I get back to London and my books, I doubt I used anything online back then (I still think online sources are rather dubious). It’s hardly a widely understood subject anyway, so I doubt there will be anything much online. However, I doubt even Anthony Blunt, the chief source, felt it necessary to tell us that curves and statuary are symbolic of Baroque buildings. I have lived and breathed Sicilian Baroque since I was a child, I will sort it out when I have time. In the meantime, just demote it. Giano (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

To further article improvement, here are some phrases that seem rough to me, in the intro and Characteristics section:

• "came to fruition" - probably the wrong phrasing; this implies this style was a goal being worked towards
• "in a naïve and parochial manner" - a negative opinion
• "developed a confidence" - it seems dubious architects were actually afraid of anything; maybe this means to say the style became bolder or more pronounced?
• "barely fifty years" - negative connotation; "nearly fifty years" would be more neutral
• "theatrical" - confusing; what does it mean for architecture to be "theatrical" given that buildings don't move or speak?
• "heavy-handed pastiches " - negative opinion
• "coupled with a unique freedom of design that is more difficult to characterise in words" - could say "combined with unique and creative designs" or just not say anything (either express it in words or pictures, but don't bother complaining about the difficulty of doing so)
• "accentuating the Baroque love of light and shade" - rock could express or manifest a love of light and shade, but love is invisible and can't be accentuated visually

-- Beland (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think you are being very pedantic. I’m sorry you can’t see what is theatrical about Baroque architecture - that some of its greatest architects were also set-designers is perhaps a clue. As for negative opinion, you don’t have to worry: a building doesn’t need its appraisals and faults to be couched in positivitE criticism. It doesn’t have any self-confidence to destroy. As a for came to fruition, fruit is the completion of a process beyond which it doesn’t go any further, eg it is ended. as for love of light and shade, I could have used the word Chiaroscuro, but would the intelligent 14-year-old, for whom we are writing understand it, having to keep clicking away from a page is distracting and he’ll loose interest. You obviously have never heard of the architectural trick, so perhaps we should replace that. Anyhow, I keep saying take the star away, so unless there is anyone else here who understands the minutiae of detail which makes Sicilian Baroque differ from Baroque elsewhere, just get on and remove it. Giano (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• By our 2020 FA standard, it lacks citations. But it is:

1(a) (very) well written;

1(b) comprehensive, neglecting no major facts or details and placing the subject in context;

1(c) well-researched - it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate (see above);

1(d) neutral - I don't share the FAR nominator's concerns on this point;

1(e) stable;

2(a) provided with a concise lead;

2(b) structured appropriately;

2(c) consistently cited;

3 provided with images and other media, in abundance, well-illustrating the points made;

4 focussed.

Thus, as others above have said, it's a citations issue, to bring the article in line with current standards. I should be pleased to assist in addressing this, if the FAR nominator will give time and space to do so. The main editor has also clearly indicated their willingness to do this. I would add that, for an editor with some knowledge of certain architectural styles but with no previous appreciation of the Sicilian Baroque, this article is both extremely informative and a great pleasure to read. I learnt a lot, which I think is what we're really about. KJP1 (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There is always time and space at FAR ... only need to demonstrate ongoing progress. KJP1 if you are going to be adding citations, just keep the Coords here updated on your progress, and we should be able to retain the star on Giano's fine work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia - appreciated. As I mentioned on the article talkpage, the major sources are rare/out-of-print/very expensive, or a combination of all three! But I am confident that the libraries I can access will be able to assist. I shall certainly keep all interested parties updated, and I am hopeful Giano will also return to the page when they can. KJP1 (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've also been adding bits, and there discussion on going on the article talk. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

That's fine - articles have sat at FAR for months if the coordinators feel that active work is taking place on them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I just did some minor MOS-y stuff,[2] and there has been good progress; a bit more citation work to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Per Sandy's update, the citing is progressing. There are a few remaining CN tags, five in total at my, possibly inaccurate count, that need attention, particularly in the Church and Palazzi Interiors sections; and a number of paragraphs that would benefit from concluding cites, notably in the Early Sicilian Baroque section; but we now have the main sources readily available, so will be looking to address these in the next few days. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

I would Support Sandy’s view, here. I believe that citation to 2020 standards has been achieved. We’ve moved from 49 to 144 cites and there are no outstanding tags. The prose, and illustrations, were, and remain, of the highest standards. KJP1 (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think enough has been done here. Thanks to all who joined in! Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Eccellente! -- Beland (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Beland, who initiated the FAR is on board: Close without FARC. Kudos to all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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