Talk:St Mark's Basilica/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

There must be an error in the external link 211.75.249.244 05:25, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the article to St Mark's Basilica. This returns far more Google hits that its previous location (San Marco di Venezia), and most of those hits were copies of this page. Warofdreams 18:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea if the recent edits by 198.188.95.132 to this article are accurate, however someone from the same IP address at virtually the same time vandalized another article - so it would be good if these could be confirmed as legit. Pcb21| Pete 21:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • The edits don't look like vandalism, but aren't exactly accurate, either. I'll address them. Warofdreams 10:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Refering to the "added information" about a world famous feature of the Basilica, "The 4 Tetrarchs", a late roman statuary

from the time of Diocletian. How can a reference to this be considered "vandalism??? It is 900 years older than the present Basilica. It is a key artifact of Imperial Rome, like the equestrian statue of Marcu Aurelius in Rome.The Horses on public display are fibre-glass, for goodness sake. This is a real, and unique work of art,and it is set into the Basicila like a corner stone. (I'm a professional historian, with major documentary credits.Not a vandal!)Nativeborncal 04:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

File:4 tetrarchs.jpg

I think the 4 Tetrarchs should definitely be included here, it is a very important work. I am questioning the 3D image. It doesn't make sense to have an image with that kind of novelty, and requiring special glasses to view it. JohnDilworth 06:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

St Mark is undoubtedly the cathedral of Venice --Stefano Remo 22:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working at "St Mark's Basilica", and contributions will arrive soon (I'll edit some more Venice churches then). Suggestions are welcome! --Stefano Remo 12:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Peerreview

I see the discussion needs to be stimulated. Please help me! --Stefano Remo 20:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! I have saved an expanded article removing the tag. --Stefano Remo 00:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Gaps

There are some huge huge gaps here. For example, there's almost nothing here about St. Marks in the 16th century, when the 17th Earl of Oxford worshiped there and is said to have built a house near the ghetto. Normally I find wiki articles -- of course excepting those that have been subjected to barrages of partisan influence usually of a distinctively regressive character (that is, over-identifying with established dogmas of one form or another -- much more useful than this one. I'll try to see what I can find to help fill things in a bit. I'd like to work on some pages that don't have those partisan influences. Cheers.--BenJonson (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The Right Transcept!

The article might well be improved via the inclusion concerning St. Clements chapel, supposedly containing the very relic,that led to the building of the edifice itself! Even the "pillar" within which these "remains" were found forgotten for many years (if we believe any of this story at all.) is supposedly still displayed. Do there not exist any photographs of this Chapel and pillar? By the way perhaps a copy of this painting should also be added? http://www.jacopotintoretto.org/The-Discovery-of-St-Mark's-Body-1562-66.html96.19.147.40 (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Ronald L.Hughes

Lack of basic dating

We are remarkably vague on the building history - "Rebuilt in 978 and again to form the basis of the present basilica since 1647", whatever that means, is the main information given. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Dates

Some anon changed all the dates in this edit...I don't have time to fix them all right now, but I thought I should note it here in case someone has a moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Done - that ISP did a lot of that but seems to have been caught on most other articles. None since April fortunately. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St Mark's Basilica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Flooding not mentioned?

This article really needs a section on the flooding that has occurred over the past years, including this week. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/13/waves-in-st-marks-square-as-venice-flooded-highest-tide-in-50-years 

   St Mark’s Square was submerged by more than one metre of water, while the adjacent basilica was flooded for only the sixth time in 1,200 years – but the fourth in the last two decades. The last occasion, in November 2018, caused an estimated €2.2m (£1.9m) of damage.

   The archbishop of Venice, Francesco Moraglia, said St Marks had suffered “structural damage, because the water has risen. This is causing irreparable harm, especially – when it dries out – in the lower section of the mosaics and tiling.”

   Carlo Alberto Tesserin, who heads the team responsible for managing the historic site, told Agence-France Presse the water had surged into the basilica with a force “never seen before, not even in the 1966 flood”.

   Warnings about potential damage from increasingly high tides “went unheeded”, Tesserin said, adding: “The damage we see now is nothing compared to that within the walls. The salt enters the marble, the bricks, everywhere.”

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

We should do a general article on the latest floods, then add here from that. Several neighbouring building have been much expanded this year - Procuratie, Biblioteca Marciana etc. So far nothing after 1966 Venice flood, except a little added to acqua alta, but no doubt it will come. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Unclear Parts

Within the infobox about the dimensions of the basilica, inner and outer dome is unclear and the perceived heights don't match the values given if inner dome refers to the central dome. St. Mark's lead domes are supported by wooden braces on top of 5 other interior domes.

  • Does inner dome refer to the dome below the outer dome or the domes around the central dome?
  • What is the actual height of the basilica from the foundation to the spires?
  • Are there resources that describe the architectural plan of the basilica?

98.10.44.224 (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

FA nomination

Johnbod, Yakikaki, Josh Milburn, Rcsprinter123, Ceoil, GirthSummit, Constantine, No Great Shaker, Gerda Arendt

Hello everyone, you’ve all been very helpful and supportive in the past. So I wanted to seek your guidance. I’ve been working on the article for St Mark’s Basilica in the hope of getting it to FA and eventually TFA on 8 October, the anniversary of the dedication. I still have some odds and ends to clean up. But I wanted to ask if you think I could/should skip GA and nominate it directly for FA. I also wanted to ask whether I should eliminate the last section "In scientific discourse", which really doesn’t seem to belong. Of course, any suggestions and/or corrections are always welcome.Venicescapes (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Venicescapes. My personal advice would be not to skip the GA step - I've taken all of my FAs through GAN, and they've always benefited from the comments that the reviewer has given. I appreciate you want to get it to TFA for a particular date, but going through GA might end up saving you time, if it picks up stuff that might otherwise cause problems at FAC. I think that the paper discussed in the 'In scientific discource' ought to be mentioned, but an entire section seems unnecessary - presumably mention of the paper could be made in the section of the article dealing with the spandrels themselves. Girth Summit (blether) 14:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Venicescapes: I also definitely recommend going through GA first. If nothing else, it will help get rid of the most obvious prose, style, referencing format, etc. issues, so that FA can focus on the actual content. And if you are lucky, the reviewer will be thorough and/or knowledgeable enough that possible problems with the content will also be flagged up. FA can be a lot of stress, so GA is a good dry run, and gives you a good feel for how a third person perceives your article and time to iron out the most obvious wrinkles. On the section, while interesting, it does feel indeed like something tagged on. Better incorporate it into the text, or convert it into a footnote. Constantine ✍ 15:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
What they said. If it was for April to appear, I'd say skip GA, but with no rush, I see no reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Girth Summit, Constantine, Gerda Arendt, thank you one and all for the input. I've nominated it for GA.
Gerda, with regard to the image, I really would prefer it on the left if that's okay. There are already five images on the right in that part of the article. So a little variety helps. Also, I think that on the left it signals the very significant shift in subject, from the exterior to the interior.Venicescapes (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod, Josh Milburn, Rcsprinter123, Ceoil, GirthSummit, Constantine, No Great Shaker, Gerda Arendt, Hello everyone, the article passed GA, and I nominated the basilica for FA. If any of you would like to weigh in, it would be great.Venicescapes (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits to Music

Thoughtfortheday, Hello, thank you for your corrections earlier. I've been looking at your edits to the music section, and I have some questions. Your statement: "It is true some Venetian music seems to call for reverberance; the music of Giovanni Gabrieli, for example, lends itself to a sonorous style of performance, and some Venetian composers deployed echo effects." seems to be unsourced. I looked at the website you cited, but could not find this information. Can you please substantiate this? Also, I'm not sure about shifting the information between paragraphs. As I originally wrote it, the third paragraph discussed the placement of the choirs and the fourth paragraph then discussed the implications and the technical aspects. As it is now, the information about the placement of the choirs is divided between the two paragraphs with the technical information in between. Again, I'm not sure that this is the best solution. Can you please take another look?Venicescapes (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Venicescapes, Hello, thanks for your polite note. I had some reservations about the rather revisionist approach to the St Mark's echo (which definitely exists). However, I appreciate that you are looking to put the article through a review process, so feel free to revert my edits. I may come back to the article in due course.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thoughtfortheday, thank you for your understanding. I did revert several of the edits. You are correct that I'm hoping to get the article through the GA nomination for now. Before nominating it for FA, we could certainly take another look at the music section. But some aspects might be better covered in depth in the article on Venetian polyphony. In the meantime, I'll reread Deborah Howard's book and also read Laura Moretti's 'Architectural Spaces for Music: Jacopo Sansovino and Adrian Willaert at St Mark's', which I just found. Let's stay in touch.Venicescapes (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:St Mark's Basilica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Starting review

Hello again, Venicescapes. Hope you are okay. I'll pick this review up and will hopefully have some feedback for you soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, Thank you. I'm very happy it's you. You were a great help with the Campanile.Venicescapes (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

  1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
  2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
  3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
  4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
  5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
  6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
  7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
  8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
  9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
  10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
  11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  12. No original research.
  13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
  14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
  15. Neutral.
  16. Stable.
  17. Illustrated, if possible.
  18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'll use this checklist as I go along. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I've studied the images and they are excellent. Certainly no problems with usage as far as I can see because I believe all are PD or own work. The article is stable and the layout is fine so I've ticked those above. I've done a quick initial read to get a feel for the article. I need to read it in depth next and consider the main criteria. I won't have time to do that today but I'll hopefully be back in a couple of days at most. All the best for now. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Venicescapes, and sorry for the delay but I'm afraid my footballing interests have taken massive priority over the last several days. I've been reading the article as and when possible and I have to say it is very nearly there. In terms of presentation, writing, NPOV, coverage, etc. I can only say that it's really interesting, informative and well written. I'd just like to spend a bit more time on the sources, if that's okay, though what I've checked so far is fine. Hope to be back again soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, not a problem. Enjoy the article and the football game(s). Let me know if I can clarify anything. Cheers.Venicescapes (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Result

Hello, Venicescapes. The article is comprehensively sourced and there's no denying that it's a good article. (Although I missed the double the that someone else has fixed, ha!) I would recommend that you take this to FAC because it is more than a GA. I realise that process is much more painstaking than GAN but I can't imagine anyone having much to query. So, I'll do the necessary and complete this as a pass. Very well done. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, this is a great pick-me-up. Thank you for your time and encouragement. I hope to nominate it for FAC very soon. I'll let you know. All the best.Venicescapes (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Mark%27s_Basilica/Archive_1&oldid=1078169821"