# Talk:Nuova Cronica

Hello. I've recently created this article from information I had previously kept in the article for Giovanni Villani; if anyone has any suggestions on how to improve this article, let it be known.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Use logical quotation: punctuation goes outside of the quote marks unless the meaning of the punctuation is implied within the quoted material.
Link day-month-year dates for the purposes of date preferences
Captions of picture should only end in periods if the caption is a complete sentence.
Does the rebuilding, the fires, the famine, the plague, etc. all deserve distinct sections? IMO this diverts focus from the Nuovo Cronica, and instead begins to sound like an article on the history of Florence (related, but not the same thing). Would it be better, instead, to have an umbrella section (such as "Notable entries"), and then each event would be a subsection? This organization would be more in line with the organization of the "Municipal statistics" section, and IMO is also conducive to making sure that the focus of the article is on the Nuovo Cronica itself.
Good use of sources, and overall a great article.
Best regards,
Malachirality (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to reviewer: Please add to WP:GAN that you are reviewing the article so others won't try to review it as well. Noble Story (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Aside from addressing your minor concerns, which I have just done, I have also created a new legacy section at the end to satisfy one of the two larger concerns that you had. As for reorganizing the article, I will need additional feedback from you on how you think it should be done, because looking at the way the article stands now, I fail to see what could be done to improve it organizational-wise.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean, if you look at the first section "rebuilding florence", it makes no mention of the chronicles, or how the section relates to the chronicles. Instead, for me, it seems like Villani is being used as a historical source merely for the purpose of providing information on the history of florence. Of course, it is easy to deduce that what is being described is a section of the chronicles themselves, but part of the problem is the section title IMO, which does not establish a clear relationship between the section and the subject. For example, it is very clear that "background" implies background on the subject of the chronicles. However, when a reader moves from background to the next section, it is an abrupt break I think; the background section clearly talks about the chronicles, but the subject (and title) of "rebuilding florence" is just as much, if not more, about the history of florence itself as it is about a book that contains the history of florence. It's a small distinction, but this article should talk about the latter, not the former. To this end, I think a section titled "notable passages" or something would go a long way in making that topical and logical connection to the chronicles themselves. Of course, this is all a matter of personal opinion and ideas.
--Malachirality (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Put another way, the different historical sections are not different enough to merit distinct sections in this article. They would be separate in an article on the history of florence b/c they are distinct time periods and events. Here however, they are variations on a theme--they are all passages from the Cronica. B/c of this, I think it would be logical to organize them together as subsections under an umbrella section that describes what they are in relation to the Cronica. --Malachirality (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, you've made it emphatically clear what needs to be done. I will get right on it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have broken subjects apart and placed events in strict chronological order, which is what Villani would have done with his Cronica. That means the construction stuff has been split into different sub-sections, and the two famines are split apart with the descriptions of fires and floods in between. I hope you see this as a good start, at least.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's almost there, but there's a new problem: WP:LAYOUT is against short sections. This would definitely mean "famine of 1347", and likely others as well. Would a merge work in certain areas? --Malachirality (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think I might have remedied that; have a look.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
An overall excellent article (even before the review), well-sourced, well-researched, well-written, and interesting.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Sections and subsections are fine for GA; some may be a little thin/short for hypothetical FAC though.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Good variety of sources, good citations throughout article.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The picture of the statue of Villani runs over the section line in my browser.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Congratulations!
--Malachirality (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicle was continued after Giovanni's death by his brother Matteo, and then by his son Fillipo. The article should probably make some mention of this as the three chronicles are generally considered one entity by historians.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.238.81 (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)