Wikipedia:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/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 16:09, 15 January 2007.

---

Palladian architecture

Review commentary

Messages left at Giano, Bishonen, and Architecture. Sandy (Talk) 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lacks inline citatons. One entire section contains only a name, though it is clear that more should be present. —Cuiviénen 00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks for the message. Looks OK to me. If someone can see a mistake they ought to fix it. If not delete it Giano 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Cuivienen, if you have any specific concerns that some detail may not be factually verifiable, please let us know. I looked through the article and I have not seen any dubitable assertions. If you were able to spot something questionable, please go ahead and add an inline citation where needed, rather than wasting everybody's time. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Looks very handsome. Thanks for the message, but it's not a subject I have a grasp of, few people do. I'm not in a position to say if any facts in it are less than generally agreed on. The references look complete as far as I understand it, and the experts commenting above seem to think them sufficient. But if inline references for all mentioned facts are a sine qua non for FA, it's probably as well to defeature it. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
• Comment. I thought the purpose of inline citation was to provide them for "Material that is, or is likely to be, challenged" (WP:CITE). What specific aspects are contentious here, it all seems quite straightforward to me. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree to some extent, but inline citations have become a requirement for FA promotion these days. I wouldn't necessarily argue to defeature this because of a lack of inline citations, but I do think it should be brought up here (which might encourage inline citations to be added). —Cuiviénen 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is not good enough then de-list it or delete it. Giano 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• To avoid a protracted discussion like we had on James Joyce, can we please get a *sample* (only) list from someone knowledgeable about the topic, the nominator, and others of statements that need to be cited? I don't know architecture. Sandy (Talk) 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comments I see the single section has been fixed: can someone knowledgeable pls review the external links vis-a-vis WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:EL? Sandy (Talk) 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Someone knowledgeable about the topic, the nominator, and others"... oh, I see, the nominator was me? Sandy, it wasn't part of the FAC culture at the time (long time back) that nominators necessarily had to be specialists in the subject of articles they nominated. Heck, ALoan was always getting in there first and nomming texts I had written, I don't think he would claim specialist knowledge of them. Being the nominator was more an expression of trust in the writers. Anyway, considering I already stated above that I don't know the subject, it's not a lot of use for you to call on me again. I believe the wikipedians who do know it have already commented. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
    • No, Cuiviénen is the nominator here. Sandy (Talk) 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I had a look at the links - most are quite expansive and authoritative regarding palladianism - I removed Banqueting house, Holkham hall and Woburn abbey - if there's historical information on those sites its either scant or too deeply buried for me to find. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have added Robert Tavernor, James Ackermann and Rudolf Wittkower to the References. Generally speaking, I'm sorry to see in-line citations used as a stick to beat people with: not in this case, needless to say. The argument from ignorance— "I've never heard that Palladio was the most influential 16th-century architect" etc.— is a weak one, though it is universal at Wikipedia and is considered definitive, apparently. There is not a phrase in the present article I would consider out of the mainstream of literate architectural discourse, though I could pick through it and "tweak" wording. The question is: is this an example of Wikipedia at its best? Of course it is. --Wetman 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The purpose of Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia, is, first and foremost, to be an accessible source of information to those unfamiliar with the subject. To you, and to any specialist in architecture or indeed anyone who has ever taken an architecture lesson (myself included), it may seem obvious that Palladio was an extraordinarily important and influential architect. That is not in question. However, for those who do not know such facts, and for those who might wish to dispute them (it is, after all, still little more than opinion, even if nearly universally held), we have an obligation to provide source material. Would you leave a scientific article uncited because there is little debate on the subject in the scientific community? No! Absolutely not! The same goes for architecture. —Cuiviénen 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hence the references at the end. There are several articles like this where they're simply not presenting breaking information. If I explain that the first usage of the word "parody" to refer to prose is in A Tale of a Tub, I need citations, as that's new stuff. If I say that A Tale of a Tub is Swift's first major satire, I don't. If I say that it is a chaotic and difficult satire ("opinion"), I again do not, because no one who has ever written on it has suggested that it is either easy or predictable. A list of references at the end will give the reader several other overview works to consult. We should cite, but we need to keep this impulse to cite from making our articles look less like articles than undergraduate research papers. Geogre 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Per Wetman, the problem is that an omnibus encyclopedia article like this is a synthesis of universally agreed upon facts. In other words, one cannot find a single source that doubts or refutes or gainsays these facts. Every source one can find agrees, and therefore none of these are suspect statements that needs a specific reference. Instead, it needs a summary of the particular sources, which it has in the references. One can find sites and accounts ignorant of the facts, but none with different facts. Geogre 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Here we go again. A common knowledge of someone does not always the case for someone else. I am not an architect nor have taken an architecture lesson. If I'd like to know about Palladian, then sorry to say that i cannot trust this article. There is no way to avoid the fact that this article was completely written out of the head from the editors, because all WP editors are anonymous. One way to avoid it is to supply this article with inline citations, where the fact comes from, from which page of a book, is the source reliable?, etc. By telling "here is the reference list given at the bottom" is no good either. For instances, these facts are taken randomly from the article:
  • Buildings by Palladio himself are all in Venice and the Veneto. → is that true that only these 2 cities contains buildings by Palladio himself?
  • During the 17th century, many architects studying in Italy learned of Palladio's work. → how many? I only see one from the article, Inigo Jones.
  • One of these students was the English architect Inigo Jones, who is directly responsible for importing the Palladian influence to England. → was he ordered to influence England with Palladian? by whom?
  • The baroque style, popular in continental Europe, was never truly to the English taste. → again this fact needs an inline citation, why was baroque stye never truly to the English taste? All right, you might say that it is out of the scope of this article, but what if a reader wants to know more. Where should (s)he find out the source of this fact?

… and many more. I don't want to put {{fact}} tags in the article, as some might say that it is WP:POINT. — Indon (reply) — 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• That facts are "common knowledge" or "widely accepted" does not mean that everyone knows them automatically, nor that they are "made up out of the editor's head". It simply means that the facts are uncontroversial and included in pretty much any reference - just pick one from the cited sources.
• You cannot trust any Wikipedia article, with or without references - nor indeed can you trust implictly any encyclopedia or any other source. However, you should at least be able to verify a Wikipedia article that has cited sources.
• The Veneto is not a city - just follow the link. But yes, that is where they all are (or in some cases were). Please let us know if you find one somewhere else.

• Actually, the phrase "buildings by Palladio himself" could be clearer, I think--here it means as opposed to random stuff he worked on like the interiors at Duino, not as opposed to buildings by his "workshop" or some such. I tweaked it. Chick Bowen 09:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• How many 17th century architects learned of Palladio's work? I don't know, although Inigo Jones is certainly a notable one. How many 20th century architects learned of the works of Frank Lloyd Wright? Quite a few, no doubt; some more notable than others. I doubt anyone could make a list.
• Inigo Jones imported Palladianism into England by going to Italy, studying the works of Palladio there, bringing his knowledge back to England, and designing the first Palladian building in England. As the text makes clear.
• If you want to learn about Baroque, try Baroque. The article does not express a view on why it was not that popular in England.
• Adding {{fact}} templates to particular points that are thought to need specific citation is helpful. Carpet-bombing an article with them is not. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: Please put inline citations to the sentences/paragraph that I took above! I want to know where it comes from, if you insist that it didn't come from the top of your head. Yes, I cannot trust any Wikipedia article, but I trust more featured article than ordinary one, because it is verifiable based on reliable sources. This is FAR and we review FA article based on WP:WIAFA. If there is no 1.c criterion about factually accurate sources, then I will not complain about inline citations. — Indon (reply) — 10:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe samples that were taken above are not good examples here. Thus, I read again the article, and I came up with two {{fact}} requests. To avoid of being called "carpet-bombing", below I put the reasons why I want specific inline citations:
  1. Whatever the name or the origin, this form of window has probably become one of the most enduring features of Palladio's work seen in the later architectural styles, evolved from Palladianism. → it looks opinion to me if there is no inline citation.
  2. One of these students was the English architect Inigo Jones, who is directly responsible for importing the Palladian influence to England → the same as above. The text did not tell me why it is said that Jones is responsible for importing Palladium to England. Please just supply it with an inline citation where the directly responsible comes from.

— Indon (reply) — 11:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• A direct quote was just added to the article: I tagged it because a page number should be provided for a direct quote from a book. Sandy (Talk) 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Status? I see 3 inline citations added: leaving talk message for nominator. Sandy (Talk) 18:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd rather see more, but this doesn't need to go to FARC. The two-week period isn't quite up, yet, though. —Cuiviénen 18:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Needs more inline cites, move to FARC. LuciferMorgan 02:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 01:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Inline citations are needed if the sources are not otherwise clear. That is not a problem here, since this is a broad introduction and does not make specific interpretive statements that would need to be tied to particular architectural historians--the claims here are backed up collectively by the references section. Chick Bowen 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove Clear lack of inline citations, a violation of criterion 1. c. LuciferMorgan 00:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, meets requirement of appropriate use of inline citations. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Doesn't meet the requirement in any shape or form. It's ludicrous to even suggest it does. This article wouldn't even meet GA at the moment. LuciferMorgan 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll refrain from describing your comment as "ludicrous." But obviously there is disagreement about the accuracy of your statement. The important thing to remember is that no number of inline citations is required for a featured article. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

*I think it's a great pity that this looks like being demoted—so nicely written and a great topic. I suppose it will have to go if no one will help it to satisfy 1c; none of the regular reviewers is qualified to do so, I think, so we're stuck. <grumbles> Tony 14:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I can do math articles, medical articles, etc., but not architecture; all I know in that area is someone should shoot my ex-architect, or at least take away his license. I have to rely on the architectural reviewers here, and we haven't heard enough from them. It would sure be nice if they'd add citations where/if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment The article makes a lot of comments and opinions., and they need citations. Whole paragraphs remain uncited - articles which satisfy (not fully may I add) 1c a lot more than this article are demoted, so this one should be no different. LuciferMorgan 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per my comments above, and those of C Parham and Chick Bowen. Giano 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Not this argument again? First, repeating your view won't help, LM. Second, the interpretive elements here are very, very, very much not things requiring footnotes. If I cite that a bridge went up in 1740, then that it had traffic of 30,000 drays a day by 1750, and then I say, with no citation, that the bridge was vital for the city's growth, it's just a syllogism. There is no citation needed for the third statement. It can be disagreed with but it cannot be called unfounded. It has the limitation of conclusions from presented data, but not of being "some dude's opinion." This is the distinction between encyclopedia writing where a thesis is coherently and cogently argued and a nervous drudge's regurgitation of the library stacks. Geogre 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Review is always welcome, however, there seems to be some 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' arguments being presented here for inline citations - they should be provided for "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Most of the qualified architecture editors have stated the material is unlikely to be challenged - certainly by any authoritive source. No one seems to be able to say what is likely to be challenged. It seems the proposers have taken a quick look at the article, seen the simple fact it has no inline citations and plonked it on FARC with a knee jerk despite the extensive references section. Joe bloggs may verify the article himself by obtaining the books and reading them. I can find very few parts of the article that might represent anything offering an opinion; I was well into the article before....

"Palladio deeply considered the dual purpose of his villas as both farmhouses and palatial weekend retreats for wealthy merchant owners. ......... They were, however, in no way intended to be part of the main house, ......"

Statements of intent by Palladio might need a citation, but it's fairly obvious stuff apparent to all those in possession of mark 1 eyeballs and reference to the excellent images contained in the article. The following sentence - "and it is in the design and use of these wings that Palladio's followers in the 18th century adapted to become an integral part of the building" certainly doesn't need citations. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think the article would spoil from having a few extra footnotes, but if several highly respected wikipedians vouch for the verifiability and accuracy of the article, and the article provides a list of sources, I believe it to be enough to consider the article FA-material. I mean, this is exactly what good encyclopedia editors are supposed to do; sift out well-worded bits of information from extensive source materials for everyone's reading pleasure without necessarily engaging in gratuitous footnote sprinkling. Adding a footnote for every other sentence, fact or figure is assuming that ordinary people can't possibly read books without being guided to specific pages. This smacks of a fetish for citation format and a very obvious form of instruction creep, and to me this seems to encourage institutionalized cherry-picking instead of constructive and enlightened review of content. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No actually. Utter rubbish - this smacks of actually reading the FA criteria, and criterion 1. c. is there in black and white. Go and read it. Highly respected Wikipedians? By who? The largely unaware public who click on the pages who don't even edit? Once again, rubbish. LuciferMorgan 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't push interpretations on others, Lucifer. 1. c is as far as I know intended to be flexible and the hard line "everything Joe Blow doesn't immediately recognize needs a footnote"-interpretation is quite clearly something which does not enjoy universal support. Just because many recent reviewers have set almost arbitrary and clearly exaggerated standards for the amount, not so much the actually quality of, citations and verifiability, I don't see why this interpretation should be seen as an absolute standard. And most importantly, it's very inappropriate squabbling about a topic of which you seem to little or no in-depth knowledge. I can't see how Wikipedia is improved by this type of debacle. / Peter ^Isotalo 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Are claims "verifiable against reliable sources" and do they "accurately present the related body of published knowledge"? Yes. Are claims "supported with specific evidence and external citations ... where appropriate, complemented by inline citations"? Yes, they are. Some more inline notes or footnotes would be nice to have, but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I see a lot of reviewers above saying the article could benefit from more cites: I wish someone who knows the subject area would just do it, so we won't see this back on review a year from now. It's been a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  "could benefit from" = "nice to have", yes; must have, no. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Must have = yes. Whether you like it or not ALoan (which you don't, whatever you try to say to the contrary), criterion 1. c. is there and here to stay. LuciferMorgan 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

LM, you seem to have missed my point, so let me quote 1(c) in full, rather than just the relevant phrases, as I did above:

(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.

• Is it factually accurate? Yes.
• Are its claims verifiable against reliable sources? Yes.
• Does it accurately present the related body of published knowledge? Yes.
• Are claims are supported with specific evidence? Yes.
• Are claims supported by external citations? Yes.
• Is there a "References" section? Yes.
• Is the References section "where appropriate, complemented by inline citations"? Yes.

Which of the above statements do you disagree with and why? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I shall not be doing it, because it does not need them, and I have better things to do with time Giano 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It DOES need them actually. LuciferMorgan 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Repeating my views is due to the fact that if this article is kept, it would make an utter mockery of Featured Article Review. There are lots of opinions attributed and the article, and opinions need inline citations. It's as simple as that. LuciferMorgan 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"In 1570 Palladio published his book I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura, inspiring architects across Europe." Inspired who? According to what researcher? Needs citation, otherwise is original research. LuciferMorgan 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• "I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura" Is one one of the worlds greatest, most famous, and important architectural works, I have no intention of referencing such an accepted and well known fact - it would be akin to refencing the current Queen of England is called Elizabeth. Giano 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Palladio deeply considered the dual purpose of his villas as both farmhouses and palatial weekend retreats for wealthy merchant owners." What? We're actually assuming what he thought now? Needs inline citation. LuciferMorgan 01:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• The fact is so obvious, if one has a grand house with farmbuildings stuck on the side all built at the same time by the same man it is quite apparent that he "considered the dual purpose of his villas as both farmhouses" Giano 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"They were, however, in no way intended to be part of the main house, and it is in the design and use of these wings that Palladio's followers in the 18th century adapted to become an integral part of the building." In no way intended? Did he say that? If so, where to? Needs citing. LuciferMorgan 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• In what was would you immagine Palladio considered a cow shed to be part of the main house? Regarding your second point look at the pictures read the captions and open your eyes! Giano 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance this is from, so I'd dread to think about all the other possible original research in the article. LuciferMorgan 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not going to bother to comment on the remark above. Giano 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any previous knowledge about any of these statements? Do you have reason to doubt that they are false other than you suspect that they're wrong? Have you perchance read any of the sources?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (update: no "vote" implied). What a fascinating FARC. Clearly the duelling views of what a Featured Article should be are coming to a head, and interpersonal dynamics are, by my observation, affecting the proceedings considerably. Completely in spite of myself, I find myself leaning toward Remove—in doing so, I am choosing to apply the current Featured Article standard, rather than subverting the standard to the very good editors involved, or trying to make other points about FA criteria. (And the points of Geogre and others seem more valid than their inverse, to me.) In other circumstances, we'd have prose- and verifiability-oriented editors pointing out sentences like:
  • "The Palladianism of the White House is interesting as it is almost an early form of neoclassicism, especially the South facade, which closely resembles James Wyatt's design for Castle Coole of 1790, also in Ireland. Ironically, the North facade lacks one of the floors from Leinster House, while the Southern facade gains a floor extra than Castle Coole, and has an external staircase more in the Palladian manner."—"Ironically" is editorializing; "a floor extra than" is awkward.

• Reworded Giano 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • "In Palladio's architectural treatises, as well as the buildings he designed and built,"—the dreaded "as well as".

• Reworded Giano 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • "If on a hill, such as Villa Capra, all facades were often designed to be of equal value so that occupants could have fine views in all directions."—"all" and "often" don't work together.
  • "They were no longer villas but 'power houses' in Sir John Summerson's term, the symbolic centres of power of the Whig "squirearchy" that ruled Britain."—awkward, making the reader wonder if this is a run-on sentence. Summerson's term is not referenced. Again, current FA standards.

• I don't what is wrong here could you re-word|edit yourself? Giano 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • "Castle Coole is, in the words of the architectural commentator Gervase Jackson-Stops, "A culmination of the Palladian traditions, yet strictly neoclassical in its chaste ornament and noble austerity"." The current FA standard requires page attribution for a quote.

• I have reffed Jackson Stops quote and left a request on Wetman's page for Summerson quote ref. Giano 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Summerson's term is in his essay "The Classical Country House in 18th-Century England", and all through his major work Architecture in Britain 1530-1830 (1993), a book that doubtless informs all the discussion here— but of course it is employed by writers like Mark Girouard too. Tacitly it informs all discussion of architecture as an expression of social standing in Britain, doesn't it. Summerson is also the source of the expression "prodigy houses" to describe those grand Jacobean piles so familiar to all of you. Some time last month I removed this discussion from my Watchlist: nec dilectare volunt nec prodesse, or so it appears, and I require both. I would never subject any article to this process myself. --Wetman 09:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• So am I saying the writing is poor? Hardly, but stuff like this is used as a basis for objection in many other candidacy discussions. At the same time, I say to the article's creators—because the accomplishment achieved in a given article and the article's FA status are becoming less and less correlated—very nice work. If the FAR system is going to function consistently—whether for the better or worse—then this article should no longer be an FA because it no longer meets (FA) expectations for verifiability. –Outriggr § 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have addressed the points you make, please feel free to edit any awkword phrasing (or indeed anything else on the page) yourself. Giano 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am striking my "remove". What I wished to communicate can be said without it. Many times I've seen the reviews of older featured articles fail because they do not meet the current standard for referencing. Heated discussion ensues, asking whether there isn't a grandfathering for older articles, and so on. The answer comes back negative. Unless a new precedent is desired, I think the review process should be applied consistently. –Outriggr § 08:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reading LuciferMorgan's list of need-inline-citation items and what the editors reponses are, I am leaning toward remove. I am not questioning the editors' credibility, but it's a nature of Wikipedia that all editors are anonimous. The burden of whether statements are true or false is not on the readers'. Okay, readers can go to find books listed in the article, but what's the point of writing bla..bla..bla in the article where there is no pointer to which book and page I should read more? We have FA standards and we have three pillars of Wikipedia. Obviously, this article does not satisfy one of them: verifiable. Should I borrow all the books and browse all the pages to verify a single statement that I'm doubting at? Unbelieveable. — Indon (reply) — 08:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. With experience I've found the table of contents and index invaluable though. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

With your experience then, why don't you simply put inline citations in the article to help inexperience reader who is really new about this subject (including me)? — Indon (reply) — 00:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added citations to those aspects that have been challenged - for further help Indon [inexperience reader who is really new about this subject] I can only suggest reading this. --Mcginnly | Natter 20:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a native English person, who still have troubles with English grammar. Is there something wrong with my English grammar? Being stupid in English, what are you suggesting to me to read the Grammar article? Please explain. — Indon (reply) — 21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm towards Indon's good faith effort isn't helpful; his points have merit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, no offence intended Indon you're not stupid in English, but your grammar's a bit 'non-standard'. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see citations, I strike my vote, I am out of this FAR process, I am sick of editors responses and I apology for this non-standard grammar sentence.— Indon (reply) — 09:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

**I'm leaning towards Keep, although I'd really like to see more referencing.Tony 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing from this one: conflict of interest. Tony 03:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Several editors have now taken time to review and make suggestions: their requests don't seem excessive or burdensome; they will support verifiability, and they make sense to me. An article this well written shouldn't leave any area for future editors to FAR it again for the same reasons. And where is the nominator (Cuiviénen), who wanted these citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • He stated above that he didn't feel a need to proceed to FARC, unless I am misreading. So perhaps he has stopped watching this page. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding more citations, Mcginnly; they should help avoid seeing this article back on FAR sometime down the road. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I went about trying to find some sources that I could add as inline citations to this article. Of course, I don't have access to the current references. What I found—and I admit that throwing around quotes in matters of aesthetics may not prove much—are a couple of points that are counter to the effect of the article.
  • "Palladio's drawing in the Four Books presents the [ Villa Rotunda ] as an object that could be placed anywhere, with no regard for the site" (Learning from Palladio). The article says "Palladio always designed his villas with reference to their setting."
  • "American expressions, few in number and more modest in scale, have not attracted either the scholarly or popular attention of their European counterparts. Architectural history has defined the whole of American Palladianism by a small number of eighteenth-century public buildings and private dwellings." (Palladian architecture and social change in postrevolutionary Virginia. PhD dissertation.) Compare this to the overall effect of the section Palladianism#North American Palladianism. On the other hand, excerpt from Palladio's Architecture and Its Influence: A Photographic Guide supports the section much more.
• I have no POINT here. My intention was to add some cites to the article. In context, I don't put much stock in the above contrasting references (it looks like the dissertation intro is probably further from the truth than WP's article, and the other issue is quoted from a book that likely has a "re-interpretive" thesis)—but since I put the work in, I thought I'd write this up. –Outriggr § 01:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Within 24 hours of the above comment, I left a message here, clarifying that "I didn't know the FARC was closed when I made the Jan 16 comment". That message has mysteriously disappeared (in history, as well), so I am adding this again. –Outriggr § 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.