Talk:Funerary Monument to Sir John Hawkwood

Wow!

What an amazing article, very impressive. Well done to the author(s). 86.157.252.205 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Hello. I will be doing the review of this article. I happen to know a bit about the work of art, so I'm pleased I'll get to be doing the review. Often times, I review articles with subject matter of little or no interest to me, so this is a nice change of pace. Enough about me...overall the article is well written and sourced. There are, however, a few issues to be worked out before I can pass it:

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be three full paragraphs. They should summarize all the main points of the article.
• Numbers under 100 (even centuries) should be spelled out.
• Citations should go after punctuation marks or at the end of sentences.
• A variety of explanations have been proposed for this split perspective, which has even been suggested by [ ] Hartt to have been a practical joke. Are the brackets meant to be there?
• In the reference section, all books need there isbn numbers included.

Like I said, not too much to fix. After all of this is done, I'll copy edit the article and pass it. I'm putting the article on hold for one week. If at the end of the week, no real progress has been made, I'll fail the article. If the article is still being actively edited and improved, I have no problem extending the hold. Good work! Nikki311 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment. On the first two points, I think you are misreading both Wikipedia:LEAD#Length and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (as so many do). I haven't counted, but 2 paras seem ok for this length. The numbers section is tagged as disputed in any case, but it doesn't say what you claim, rather "numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as figures...". Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give for the numbers...that isn't a big deal. However, unless I am misreading something, the lead should be three paragraphs. According to the link you provided, which is what I also was referring to, articles with around 32,000 should be two or three paragraphs. Moreover articles over 30,000 should have three or four. This article has 33,000. Because the article is over 30,000 and over (but still close to) 32,000 , I believe it should have three. Nikki311 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as I said, I hadn't counted; is that visible chars, btw? - oh no it isn't. I make it 25,343 excluding spaces, and 30,182 with. That is how length is counted for DYK, so presumably for this purpose also. I'm not saying more would not be better, but the guideline language is relatively flexible. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen it counted like that, but then again, I've never done a DYK. I really don't care, but in my experience, it is easier to adequately summarize all the main points of an article with a longer lead, otherwise important stuff gets left out. I'm not going to fail the article for only having two paragraphs...that was never my intention. At this point, though, given the language of the guideline, either way is fine with me. Nikki311 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to make all these changes quickly. I think you are interpreting the lead guideline a little too mathetically rigidly (especially because the definition of a "paragraph" has no such precision) but will comply. I also think you are wrong about the centuries; please see 15th century, 16th century, etc. The brackets I believe are an artifact of the editing process. Savidan 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the books does not have an ISBN. As for the citation locations, I have fixed two; I assume you did not mean this comment to apply to citations in sections offset by parentheses or dashes. I have left one more citation as is in the "Inscription" section, which is necessary to distinguish which portions of that sentence came from which source. Savidan 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dashes are the exception to the rule, and it is fine about the book with no isbn. What about the citation infront of the ")" under Uccello. I've never seen it that way before, always after the closing parenthesis. Nikki311 00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll move those, then, afterwhich I believe your comments will have been addressed. Savidan 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right, and I'll pass the article. I'm sorry about some of the confusion with my statements...I'm still relatively new to GA reviewing, and some things you just learn as you go. Great work to all editors involved. Nikki311 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to give a good review. Savidan 00:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ciompi

"Hawkwood won many victories for Florence, including his suppression of the arti minori revolt in January 1382"

Should this link to the Revolt of the Ciompi instead of to the article on Guild? (Thanks for featuring this article, by the way). ---Sluzzelin talk 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Savidan 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Equestrian statue?

Is this article actually about an equestrian statue? If not, the category should be removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd leave it - it is historically very important painting of a fictive equestrian statue - you will see that unlike the vast majority of actual equestrian statues, it is mentioned in that article. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)