Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Palladian architecture
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) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [1].

Palladian architecture edit

Notified: Bishonen, Conte Giacomo, Wetman, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2021-03-07, 2022-05-30

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous statements and paragraphs that are missing inline citations. Also, the "North American Palladianism" section contains many one-sentence paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the last point was easily fixed! Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the lack of inline citations is the only grounds of concern, it should be a pretty simple fix. Will get on to it shortly. KJP1 (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't this have been notified to the article talk? Yes, it should. User:Z1720, please handle. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: I added the feature article review template to the top of this article's talk page with this edit. Is this what is meant by "notified to the article talk"? If not, which step at WP:FAR was missed when I made this nomination? Z1720 (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? If people miss that from their watchlist, who ever sees those? I certainly hadn't. Your previous post on talk there concluded "... If no one addresses the above soon, it might be submitted to WP:FAR. Is anyone willing to fix up this article? Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)". You didn't think that should at least be updated?? Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I'm going to ping @WP:FAR coordinators: in this discussion. Hog Farm notified the article in March 2021 (aka step 1 of WP:FAR's instructions) and the article was placed on WP:FARGIVEN. I felt that I gave a second notice with this comment on the article talk page in May 2022 (I put the wrong year at the top, which I have now corrected) and indicated as such on FARGIVEN with this edit. Typically, step 1 of an FAR does not require a notification to editor's talk pages. Is there anyone else that could have been done to make this clearer? Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, Hog Farm very properly notified article talk, to which section you added a month ago. But you did not update that section when you recently actually began the FAR. So, yes. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Per step 2 of WP:FAR, I added the FAR template to the top of the article talk page with this edit. The instructions do not require additional notices on the article's talk page. Nevertheless, I have added a notice with this edit. Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 - We’ve moved from 38 citations (12 June) to 108 (and rising), and increased the number of book sources from 16 to 37. Every paragraph is now cited, I think! Where I couldn’t source a statement, e.g. Palladian adaptations to suit Northern European climates, I’ve removed it. I’ve also tried to standardise the referencing - although I may not of caught absolutely everything as I’ve been working with a referencing style that I’m not really comfortable with, far preferring {{sfn}}; added ISBNs/OCLCs, and split the footnotes from the references. While there’s certainly more that could be done, can you/the coordinators let me know if this is sufficient to take the article off the FAR list. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps anything removed as unsourced could be noted on the talk page, in case sources can be found. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note re moving to FARC: Following KJP1's recent very impressive citation and content expansions, which I closely and happily followed, this is clearly about there. Without wanting to inhibit KJP1's parade, bravo. Ceoil (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil - Not at all! It’s good to see you and your support, here and at the article, is greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine man, I only meant to commend, there is abvs a lot more that could be added. Its fascinating stuff, although it get as a bit boring when you talk about the American follies. Ceoil (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
”American follies”! Don’t let Wetman hear you. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to KJP1 for all his work here. I think this can be closed now. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That said, imo User:Z1720 is a cool (and in my experience very helpful) head and would like to get input from them. Also, of course from Nikki.Ceoil (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All though its a clear pass from me. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues beginning 28 June moved to

Unresolved from the moved commentary is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2#Carryovers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Irish Palladian architecture, this passage:

So much of Dublin was built in the 18th century that it set a Georgian stamp on the city; however, due to poor planning and poverty, Dublin was until recently one of the few cities where fine 18th-century housing could be seen in ruinous condition.[103] Elsewhere in Ireland, during and following the Irish War of Independence and the subsequent civil war, very large numbers of country houses were abandoned to ruin or destroyed.[104][105][106]
  • I'm missing how any of this relates to Palladianism.
  • If retained or rewritten, can "until recently" be defined more explictly? The source is 2005 ... through the 20th century ? @Ceoil: on this part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was called Inner City Renewal, in the mid 60s, and again in late 70s & early 80s. They knocked all the (then tenement) houses and moved the people out to highrises in the outer suburbs. See Ballymun]. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would help with adding time context (if there is a usable source), but how does it relate to Palladianism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that it does. The issue is still highly emotive here and suspect was stuck in there...because TRUTH. Would remove claim. Ceoil (talk)
Done, I hope. You both right that it's not directly related to Palladianism, but it does give context to 18th-century architecture in Dublin. Have moved to a footnote, which I hope works for all. User:KJP1 (Talk) 10:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, now its out but in, which works for me. Ceoil (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only two houses in the United States from the English colonial period that can be definitively attributed to designs from I quattro libri dell'architettura[citation needed] are: ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Can't find a source for "the only two" claim, so have reworded. KJP1 (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this section, "so that the Hammond-Harwood House remains the only pure and pristine example of direct modelling in modern America. [2]"
    I don't find that in the source
    An independent source should be used to cite this
    Is there no Palladianism in Canada, Mexico, or South America? That is, does this mean to say "in America", or "in the United States" or "in North America"?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tweaked wording and added an independent cite from the Society of Architectural Historians. KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency? Add all, or remove all ? Why do we need "near Charleston", when others aren't specified to cities? In Virginia and Carolina, the Palladian style is found in numerous Tidewater plantation houses, such as Stratford Hall,[123] Westover Plantation[124] and Drayton Hall near Charleston.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done; ping me when you are ready for me to revisit, and we can then expedite this up to the other FARsters (Z1720, Buidhe, and Hog Farm). Only new comments are in this section, with some stragglers at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to review this as if it was an FAC, although I will fix smaller concerns myself. Please note that I have no speciality in this area, so consider this a non-expert prose review. Anything that I think I can't fix, usually because I am unfamiliar with the topic, are listed below:

  • "Palladianism flowered briefly in England in the early 17th century," I think flowered is too much into MOS:IDIOM. Would developed or flourished be a better word?
Done - "flourished" is indeed better. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reaction set in from the early 18th century," -> "Reaction to Baroque set in" to clarify what the reaction was to?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jefferson's own Monticello in Virginia." -> "Jefferson's Monticello residence in Virginia."?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in his hands the visual inheritance of Palladio's example became increasingly codified" in his hands feels like another idiom. Maybe, "his writing caused the visual inheritance of Palladio's example to become increasingly codified"
Done - sort of! See what you think? KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the 'Collector' Earl of Arundel," I think Collector should be in double quotes?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but was never truly to the English taste," -> "but did not appeal to the English"?
Done - sort of! Again, see what you think? KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most favoured among patrons was the four-volume Vitruvius Britannicus by Campbell.[60] Campbell was both an architect and publisher.[61][n 12] It was essentially a book containing architectural prints of British buildings, and inspired by the great architects from Vitruvius to Palladio;" -> "The most favoured among patrons was the four-volume Vitruvius Britannicus by Campbell,[60] an architect and publisher.[61][n 12] It contained architectural prints of British buildings, inspired by the great architects from Vitruvius to Palladio;"
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added ALT text to images per MOS:ALT. Please review and change if necessary.
Z1720 - Many thanks, for these and for the review - greatly appreciated. Mainly actioned, but two queries. Can you let me know what you think. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are my comments. Please ping when these have been reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through the article again and didn't notice other prose concerns. Some of the sources don't have ISBN numbers, though a Google search finds one. Should these be added to the references? Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 - I’ve added an OCLC to the Ruhl, good spot. However, I’m not seeing any other gaps. Are we talking of books, such as Summerson, where later editions have ISBNs, but the edition used predated them? KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a general note, we should only add an ISBN if that is to the version used (that is, corresponds to page numbers given). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My concerns are addressed, I have no more issues with this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC (Keep featured), wonderful and exhaustive work from KJP1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe and Hog Farm: I'm happy here, Z1720 has been through, and lengthy commentary, all addressed, is moved to the FAR talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod and Ceoil: for new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia - Sandy, apologies, I know you don’t like pings! Just so I’m clear, do we now wait for input from the other FAR reviewers? There’s nothing else I need to do in the interim? All the best. KJP1 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We wait for other Close without FARC (keep) declarations, or other reviews. Coords also like to hear whether involved (eg you) participants believe the article is now at standard (that is, you get to !vote). In the interim, you continue responding to any new queries (all of my stuff is done). Don't worry that I don't like pings; now that I've sent their notifications to email only, they no longer make me crazy (er). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 a new note from me: there are some items left over in the lead that are not contained in the body of the article. The lead must summarize the article, and some of the text that has been removed from the article is still in the lead, and uncited. Please revisit the entire lead: one sample is "This immense mansion outside London was one of the first, and among the most influential, of Campbell's Palladian designs." Not sure about the flowery wording here: "After the Stuart Restoration, the architectural landscape was dominated by the proponents of the more flamboyant English Baroque." So, a doublecheck that the lead is still in line with the body is needed. Another: "but its development was halted by the onset of the English Civil War" is not precisely what the body of the article says. Check flowery language in lead, eg, "to develop a new architectural style for the fledgling American Republic." I don't believe this is in the body, or cited, either: "while its inspirer is regularly cited as among the world’s most influential architects." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

have tweaked the lead
  • "immense", "fledgling" - words are now gone, although a case could be made for immense
  • "flamboyant" is fine in this context; "flourished" also - both common terms in the literature
  • "is regularly cited as among the world’s most influential architects" - surely past tense, ie "as having been among the world’s most influential..." Ceoil (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But where is that cited in the body? I'm concerned that, with all the changes in the body, the lead is no longer in sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not, I was wilting flowers only. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added a mention of Wanstead House in the body, to match the mention in the lead. Palladio’s influence/reputation is mentioned, and cited, in the Legacy section. When (if?!) we finish the FAR, and the article’s stable, I’ll recheck the lead, and the TFA blurb, to make sure they are all consistent. KJP1 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better to review the lead sooner rather than later, else others will hesitate to declare a keep. The blurb needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't understand this: The White House is more neoclassical than Palladian, particularly the South façade, which closely resembles James Wyatt's 1790 design for Castle Coole, also in Ireland. 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." - Is Castle Coole neoclassical or Palladian? The sentence seems to change track mid-way though. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil - It's a bit tricky. Castle Coole is a transition between Palladianism and Neoclassicism, and the White House is definitely more the latter, but with elements of the former. I've tried to reword the para. to make this clearer.KJP1 (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 - The rewording works for my simple brain. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

  • I'm unconvinced of the direct relevance of fn 1
Done - by removal. KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based in Virginia, The Center for Palladian Studies in America, Inc. was founded as a non-profit in 1979 to research and promote understanding of Palladio's influence in the United States" - I'd recommend against using the organization's own materials to source it here, as a secondary source would be a better indicator of the organization being significant enough to mention here.
Done - by removal, it never quite fitted and I suspect was added by a drive-by editor. KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly in areas under colonial rule" - from the context, I'm assuming British colonial rule would be a better phrasing?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to question the CSHIHE source but am convinced by the defense of the source on the FAR talk. I think I'm at close without FARC, as none of these were really dealbreakers for me and its fairly obvious that minor improvements are going to continue even after the FAR closes. Hog Farm Talk 01:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm - Thanks for the review and the support. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate my Close without FARC, and Z1720 is also a Keep (above). Thank you KJP1! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, without having followed all the ins and outs, I think a FARC is not needed. I wonder what plans Z1720 has for the rest of your summer, Sandy? Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to get the rest of the Very Oldest unreviewed FAs looked at; any help appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll find ways to keep Sandy busy. @Johnbod: you should join me by nominating some FARs and reviewing some articles. ;) Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't be doing that (FARs), though I do review FACs and, you know, write stuff. Maybe you should try sticking with your FAR noms rather than heading for the hills and leaving Sandy to do all the work. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, Z1720 amply carries their share of the load; we all try to pitch in for each other here at FAR, as everyone has the usual IRL issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining KJP1, in trying to keep the lead in sync with the body, might we work further on the following?

  • Palladianism flourished briefly in England in the early 17th century, led by Inigo Jones, but its development was halted by the onset of the English Civil War.

The article says:

  • These follow the great success of Jones's Palladian designs for the Queen's House at Greenwich, the first English Palladian house, and the Banqueting House at Whitehall, the uncompleted royal palace in London of Charles I.

Those were all 1610s to 20-ish, correct? Then,

  • Palladian designs advocated by Inigo Jones were too closely associated with the court of Charles I to survive the turmoil of the English Civil War.
... which began in 1642.
It doesn't seem that what Jones introduced really had time to "flourish" and become fully accepted and developed; rather it died out somewhat quickly. Can we find a way to recast that thought to avoid implying, via flourish, that what Jones originally introduced was widely popular, accepted, developed, and used? What eventually became widely popular developed later, as the style evolved somewhat from Palladio's original work.
Perhaps recast the entire sentence to something along the lines of:
  • English court architect Inigo Jones introduced Palladian designs to England early in the 17th century, but his brief success, and the development of Palladianism, was halted by the onset of the English Civil War.

I'm sure you can find a more eloquent way to address this, and we need not hold up the FAR over it, but perhaps this can be fine tuned? The original word was "flowered", implying something that briefly blossomed but quickly died. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 we still have the problematic flourished in the lead, when it hadn't actually flourished, rather blossomed for a brief few decades before dying on the vine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia - User:Tryptofish will be clearer than I on the horticultural difference between “flourished” and “blossomed”. I think it’s ok. It did flourish, albeit briefly, as the court architecture of James I and Charles I. Then it died, as the pushy Baroque elbowed its way centre-stage. Then it blossomed again under Burlington. Then it was superseded by the, very aggressive, Gothic Revival. Now it flourishes once more in a million McMansions. Sic transit gloria mundi! KJP1 (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'd rather not treat the word literally as a horticultural concept, because it isn't one. I thought hard about it, and I've been unable to capture in a single word something that would satisfy both of you. If you don't mind making it more than one word, I'll suggest: "Palladianism briefly came to prominence in England...". (I'll keep watching here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably work, although I suspect it didn't actually even come to widespread "prominence" then (I think prominence implies widespread?) ... would the wording I suggested above, at 19:31 21 July ... not work? Or at least provide a starting point for something more eloquent ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely unsure where to place it on the scale of "flourished" → "was a flash in the pan". I recognize the need to avoid WP:PEACOCK, but I'm pretty sure that it was considerably more than just a transient moment. The word "briefly" does limit it. I personally don't object to flowered or blossomed, or perhaps "emerged" could also work. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could go back to Giano's earlier flowered (but readers may not understand the nuance that we now see), or we could use Trypto's emerged suggestion, dropping the "briefly" ... Palladianism emerged in England in the early 17th century, ... need more opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there wasn't any earlier Palladianism, I think that "emerged" without "briefly" would be an ideal solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if we don't hear from KJP1, I'll make that edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we’re in danger of getting hung up on a detail. I think flourished is fine, but if others prefer emerged… KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did it ... still feel that "flourished" is subtly wrong and misses Giano's earlier intent of "flowering" (grew, blossomed, died) ... we need some more declarations so the FAR Coords can wrap this up. We have only two formal declarations on the page, from Z1720 and me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve attempted to fine tune both the lead and the TFA blurb, to match the changes made to the article through what I think has been a very productive FAR. Thanks to all who contributed, and particularly to SandyGeorgia for her exceptionally detailed and helpful review. While there’s always something that can be further improved, I hope we’ve collectively done enough both to close out the FAR and allow for the article’s TFA appearance in August. And finally, thanks to User:Giano, who began the article and whose writings on architectural subjects have contributed so much to Wikipedia. KJP1 (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll go down in history for this one; bringing the article up to today's requirements, while still retaining Giano's spirit and voice. Exceptionally well done (kudos to Sandy also). Ceoil (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a wonderful FAR collaboration. Thanks to all. @Gog the Mild: to let him know this looks ready for TFA, although the final FAR bookkeeping isn't yet in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 13, 2022. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Conform, Retain, Whatever apparently my previous comment wasn't formal enough. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia - Sandy, I think we’ve got you, User:Z1720, JohnBod, Ceoil, User:Hog Farm and me, if I’m allowed a vote!, favouring Close. Is there anything we can do to wrap it up? I’m conscious it’s due on the main page next month and it would be good to know it’s ready to go. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria usually goes through on Friday or Saturday ... not to worry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if you are particularly worried (that is, travel or other commitments), you could ping the FAR Coords for an earlier look ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Palladian_architecture/archive2&oldid=1101427281"