Talk:Lucrezia Tornabuoni

Pages for citations?

The citations for the Pernis and Adams text unfortunately don't include the page numbers referenced. Could someone who has access to that text find the pages to include? 1bandsaw (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lucrezia Tornabuoni/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright I will be picking up the review, both to help out my fellow Wiki Cup participants and to earn points for the GA cup as well.  MPJ-US  12:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Copyright violations Tool

• The tool has brought up some issues I have checked on

• 98% match to http://www.upcscavenger.com/wiki/lucrezia_tornabuoni/ - the article is so close to 100% that I believe it's a wiki-mirror site that the compare tool was not aware of.
• Second issue found, which warrants a closer look at [this link]

• "outside of Florence, especially in the Roman courts. To improve the family's social status, Lucrezia arranged for her son, Lorenzo to marry Clarice Orsini. Clarice's dowry was 6,000 florins. She arrived in Florence" is word for word in both sources.
• "Piero di Cosimo de' Medici, son of Cosimo de' Medici, a wealthy banker from Florence." is again in both sources
• Site poderesantapia.com does not appear to be a wikia mirror or anything like that. For the article to be passed these need to be changed to not be a straight copy. The first sentence in particular needs to be rewritten. Since the infractions are minor I will not fail the article on the spot though. N

Disambiguation links

• No issues indicated Y

External links

• No issues indicated Y

Well Written

• Some of the sections lack a little bit of flow, they're a burst of short sentences than a cohesive narrative. It's not a major obstacle but very clear that it lists quick facts as they were found more than anything
• Should not use the contraction "wasn't", should be "was not"

Lead

• "two of the most powerful families in 15th-century Italy" would be a good idea to name them.

• "Italy and extending" should be "Italy, extending"
• "herself" is redundant

Family and marriage

• "3 Jun 1444" should be "3 June 1444"
• "She and her husband" should start with "Lucrezia" instead of "she"

Political importance

• "helped creating bridges", should be "helped to create bridges"
• "In 1450 she and" should be "In 1450, she and"
• "about, that she" does not need the "that"
• "In October of 1467, as part of a rivalry between Piero and Luca Pitti, there was an assassination attempt against Lucrezia and her son Giuliano." I would move the insterted by about the rivalry to the end of the sentence.
• "had many grandchildren" is there any way to be more specific? even if it's "more than XX" or something?

Sources/verifiable

• Look okay to me, correct formatting etc. Y

Broad in coverage

• It's got a little of everything, I am satisfied. Y

Neutral

• Yes Y

Stable

• Looking at the article history I do not see anything to indicate edit wars etc. Y

Illustrated / Images

• All the pictures need to have Alt text added.
• Image "Ghirlandaio - lucreziatornabuoni.jpg" needs a U.S. Public Domain tag on the image page
• "Scheggia, trionfo della fama, met.jpg" same as above
• Cappella tornabuoni, 11, visitazione.jpg" and this one too.

• Needs to be addressed N

General

• Source in the lead, sources should be in the body of the article not the lead.
• Lead is too short, WP:LEAD indicates that this size should have 1-2 paragaphs, I would like to see a Good Article aim for the higher number of 2 lead paragraphs.
• the manual of style indicates that "see also" sections should be listed before the references.

I believe i have completed my review for now. so I am putting this on hold for up to 7 days to allow for improvements to be made.  MPJ-US  18:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• @1bandsaw: - Just a heads up, no activity yet so it will be on hold for one more day. If no activity has taken place by then I will fail it, but if you start to work on it I have no problems keeping the review open longer if you need more time to address issues.  MPJ-US  03:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• No activity for seven days. Failing the article for this time round  MPJ-US  00:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)