# Talk:Palazzo Rusticucci-Accoramboni

This review is transcluded from Talk:Palazzo Rusticucci-Accoramboni/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The last sentence under Location needs a source.
Likewise with the last sentence under Description.
Thanks for reviewing!  Done Alex2006 (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
"It belongs to the same block of the" To the same block as the?
The intro is very short, it should be a summary of the entire article.
"in the rione Borgo" If rione is an "administrative division", then "Borgo rione" would make more sense in English.
"side of Via della Conciliazione" For the non-Italian, "side of the Via della Conciliazione street" would be clearer.
"from the north Propylea delimiting" Could need some explanation, Propylea now redirects to a beetle...
"which roughly insists on the same area of the old Piazza Rusticucci" Not sure what this means. Insists/exists? Same area as?
"Piazza Pio XII" Which is a square or something like that? Then I'd say "delimiting the square Piazza Pio XII".
"the building in background" and "in foreground", I'd say "the" before background and foreground.
"Renaissance and Baroque" and "Modern Age" should not be capitalised in titles.
"Girolamo Rusticucci, born in Fano, in the Marche, secretary of Pope Pius V (r. 1566–72), who in 1570 appointed him Cardinal of Santa Susanna, bought on 31 March 1572 a palace lying almost at the end of the Via Alessandrina (the road later named Borgo Nuovo) in Borgo.[3]" This sentence is very long and convoluted. I don't think we need to know where he was born (this article is not his biography), and I'd place "on 31 March 1572" at the end of the sentence.
" once belonged to Roberto Strozzi," I think "once owned" is meant here.
"who donated it at once" Was it meant by at once? Immediately?
"exponent of the Florentine banker family" Not sure what is meant by this sentence (a Florentine banker family?), and I don't think it is needed in the article. Maybe put it in parenthesis.
This article is written in very broken English at places, so it should have been listed for copy-edit before GA nomination. But I'll try to point out language issues throughout.
"This sold it to the Cardinal" He? Also, replace Cardinal with the name of the person.
"bought also several" Also bought.
"Not always the selling negotiation finished successfully" Very broken. You could say "Selling negotiations did not always finish successfully".
"an old woman refused to sell her home, so that her house could be engulfed in the enlarged palace, but the woman and his heirs could live there until they sold it to the owner of the "Caffè San Pietro", one of the oldest in the city." This sentence has many problems. "Because her house would be engulfed"? Her heirs? One of the oldest what in the city?
"The decided opposition of another owner forced the cardinal" What is "decided opposition"? Also I'd replace everywhere you say "the cardinal" with his last name.
"The decided opposition of another owner forced the cardinal to renounce to extend the building to the east until Borgo Sant`Angelo, although the works had already commenced, and a powerful angular rustication erected at the corner between Borgo Sant`Angelo and Borgo Nuovo testified until 1937 about the Cardinal`s intention." This sentence is very long and could be split in two.
"After the transfer to Naples of Fontana" After Fontana's transferral to Naples.
"Around 1630 in the palace was transferred for a brief time the Collegio Nazareno" I don't know what this sentence means. Are you trying to say that the school was housed at the palace?
"got the task (...) to defend" Received the task (...) of defending.
"necessary to pull down" Demolish.
"created a large the new square" Remove the.
"then was occupied" and was later occupied.
What exactly do you mean by "exponent" when you say it in the article?
"became the seat of the Belgian Historical Institute, then was occupied by the Congregation" Any dates for these events?
"with design of Clemente" With design by. And why did it need new design? How is it different from the original building?
Under "modern age" why do you write about its demolition before it's history prior to this?
"Modern age" does not seem to be written chronologically in general. It probably should be.
"In the late 1510s Raphael, at that time painting the Vatican loggias, had often lunch together with his aides in a rear room.[10] The artists often discussed during lunch work problems, sketching different solutions on the walls of the room." What does this have to do with the "modern age?
"in 1937 along Piazza Rusticucci were active two shops" Strange word order. "in 1937 two shops were active along..."
"had often lunch together " Often had.
"often discussed during lunch work problems" Discussed problems during.
"throughout the years always took care of the walls of that room." Throughout the years should be last.
"which as a result was shut down by the authorities." Move "as a result" last.
"after the capture of Rome" Mention the date. In general, mention the date of all incidents mentioned in the article if you know them.
"all the sketches got lost." Were lost.
"an harmonious and severe prospect" A harmonious. And what is meant by severe?
"known through Rome's plan of Antonio Tempesta of 1593" Seems the word order isn't right here, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
" city`s" ` should be ' throughout the article.
"covered 2,700 m2" Should have an imperial conversion in parenthesis.
"83.35 m long" Likewise.
"with three orders" You mean columns?
"The palace hosts the "Caffè San Pietro", founded in 1775.[6] This is one of the most ancient Coffee Houses in Rome, and had its seat in the palace since its establishment.[6]" Why is this in description and not history?
"(the destroyed vestibule of Saint Peter's Square)" Only mentioned in intro, should also be mentioned in the article.
I think that I addressed all the copy editing issues of the article (pant, pant ;-)). About the other issues:
The story of the sketches of Raphael has been put in one place since has lasted several centuries. Maybe would be better to create a level three headers named "The sketches of Raphael in the building" separating it from the history. What do you think about it?
About the two dates that you asked, I could find the first (the one related with the Belgian Institute) but not the second (for Propaganda Fide) but this allowed me to find a mistake in the text...
I expanded the lead, but I don't know if for you is enough. If you think that there are other important points about the palace to be mentioned, you are welcome to mention them.
Most of the info about the coffee shop has now been moved to the history section. (I wonder whether one day I will get a free cappuccino for that ;-))
About the "meaning" issues, I preferred to solve them using the proper links.
That's all for now, I wait now for the start of the second round ;-) ~Thanks a lot, Alex2006 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Changes look good, a few further points below. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
"is one of the most ancient" I think "oldest" makes more sense here.
In regard to the sketches, what I was puzzled by is why they are not covered in the Renaissance and baroque section, which is when it took place?
Because the story starts with Raphael (early 16th century), goes on for about three century (the owners of the inn kept jealously them) and finishes tragically in the 19th century, with a "mano di bianco" on the wall. I have to think how to split this info in the two periods, otherwise as I said one could keep them together in a subsection. Alex2006 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it would hurt to simply split the info chronologically, the text is pretty close anyway. Just make sure to mention it is the same room and the same sketches mentioned earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, I will do it, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Done! I hope that it flows... Alex2006 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks good, will now pass! "Also worth noticing" seems slightly informal, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)