# Talk:Santi Romano

Pbritti's final opinion displays several mistakes, inaccuracies, and shortcomings:

after more than six months, I think we should move on from the reviewing stage. Pbritti's review did not last "more than six months": it lasted eight days, from 11 April to 19 April 2025. Until then, Pbritti's only contributions to the GAN review were three brief comments (18 October 2024, 27 October 2024 , 10 November 2024) which were quickly addressed, except for the last one, which I missed until the review resumed on 11 April 2025. The rest of Pbritti's "six-month review" consisted of delays Pbritti acknowledged themself, repeatedly apologising for the lack of progress: Was busier than anticipated (18 October 2024), can you wait until the end of this upcoming week (19 October 2024), Sorry for being so long out of this game. Will continue more shortly (10 November 2024), I thought I'd have more time for this ... I am unsuitable to continue this review (29 November 2024). Because of their limited availability or unwillingness to complete the review, Pbritti requested a second opinion on 29 November 2024. It is a wonderful world and IntentionallyDense stepped in to provide guidance and check Pbritti's intentions: Are you able to take another look at this article? (25 December 2024), is there anything in particular that you are looking for in a second opinion? (29 January 2025). Pbritti never answered this last question and, as a result, on 1 March 2025 I asked whether I should withdraw the current GAN submission or start a new one. Jonathanischoice kindly offered to finish the review, citing a useful grasp of Italian, but Pbritti did not explicitly accept their offer and stepped away from the process – instead, they justified themselves again (I just don't have the same time I had) and promised to provide help and assistence (7 March 2025). So nothing happened, until 10 April 2025, when 7&6=thirteen edited the article and commented: the article is well sourced and organized, and looks like 1a GA to me. At that point, Pbritti re-emerged and apparently started to take the GAN review mroe seriously. Yet the chronology speaks for itself: this was not a six-month review – it was a process that Pbritti obstructed and delayed, without clearly stepping down from the responsibility they had taken.
portions of the lead remain unsupported by the body (such as the claim about Romano moderating fascism) This comment is deeply concerning and suggests either a misunderstanding of the article or a lack of attention to the sources. The sentence in the lead his role within the party and government has been interpreted both as active support for Fascism and, conversely, as an attempt to moderate its more extreme tendencies is directly supported in the article body: Scholars also disagree on whether Romano's adherence to Fascism should be understood as a technical collaboration that helped counter the regime's most radical tendencies. This sentence is backed by a citation (Ferrajoli 1999, p. 46) and a direct quotation. I had already presented these and other sources during the GAN review and even translated the relevant passages into English (here). The notion that Santi Romano attempted to moderate Fascism's most extreme aspects is not my personal interpretation: it is a view expressed by respected scholars such as Luigi Ferrajoli, Guido Melis and Aldo Sandulli. These are mainstream legal scholars and historians, and their perspectives are acknowledged even by those, like Ridolfi 2017, who disagree with them. The article reflects this scholarly debate accurately and with proper sourcing.
close paraphrasing is present in almost every sentence reviewed. This is false. Please, @Pbritti, quote even a single sentence where "close paraphrasing" is actually an issue. Your concerns about close paraphrasing were raised here, but they were not substantiated since the Earwig tool mostly returned false positives (titles of Romano's works), and the concerns were addressed immediately and effectively (here and then again here).
there is instability of the article beyond the alterations suggested in the review. As I explained here, I rewrote the section Relationship with Fascism in response to Pbritti's suggestion that the sentence Romano maintained a relatively detached and uncommitted public profile failed verification. That sentence was in fact supported by Ridolfi 2017, who writes: Of the three public lawyers examined, Santi Romano is undoubtedly the academic with the least political profile (my translation). Nonetheless, since Pbritti questioned its accuracy, I replaced it with a more detailed and informative account of Romano's relationship with Fascism, based on the reliable sources I cited.
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: the multiple plagiarism issues from multiple close-paraphrasings alone are enough to have warranted a quick-fail. If had caught those back in October, you would've seen a quick fail then. Please understand that this article fails to meet the minimum standards for GA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Please provide an example, as already requested, of the alleged "plagiarism issues". That would allow others to assess whether I'm mistaken or whether there's a compentence issue on the part of the reviewer (possibly due to lack of time and rushed judgment). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Just one I could find in about two minutes: He spent the last years of his life in solitude working on his book Frammenti di un dizionario giuridico ("Fragments of a Legal Dictionary"), and died in Rome on the 3 November 1947. The sentence is essentially identical to the footnote spanning pages 6 and 7 of Sandulli. This article was submitted with multiple unsourced statements. I also developed concerns about paraphrasing in October, but my competency with Italian was not such that I felt qualified to comment. I requested quite clearly a second opinion. Seeing none materialize after months, I relaunched this review. The prevalence of the paraphrasing problems in English in indisputable, so my confidence in AGFing on Italian sources is not possible. I'm sorry that your article did not pass. However, an accusation of a competence problem here is so unwarranted as to be an aspersion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Pbritti I think your competence is not an issue.  I know you have done yeoman service in an arduous review.  Understandably, every one gets stressed in the Bataan death march.  We all have frayed nerves, and I am certain no insult was intended.
A similar thought was expressed in Sandulli, 2009.  For example, after his trial, in which he is both openly defiant and unrepentant he retires and goes into seclusion.  Everything in this article can be cited to that.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
To be sure, the sourcing and citations can be improved.  I would hope that after that is done, you might reconsider your disposition.
If we work together, we should be able to get this up to your interpretation of the complicated standard, and get it rated as a GA.
Keep up the good work.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Sandulli writes In the last few years of his life, he lived a life of sadness and loneliness, he devoted himself to his last and celebrated work: the “Fragments of a legal dictionary”. He died in Rome, on the 3rd of November 1947. The article states He spent the last years of his life in solitude working on his book Frammenti di un dizionario giuridico ("Fragments of a Legal Dictionary"), and died in Rome on the 3 November 1947. This could undoubtedly be improved, but remains a single sentence containing no "creative expression", no creative selection and presententation, which merely presents the raw facts that he was alone, wrote a book and died.
This GA review was not done competently: this is not "aspersion", it's an assessment and a fairly easy one to make. You kept me waiting for six months and then cancelled the review after only eight days, while I was working on the article and modifying it, taking on board your suggestions. May I suggest that if you do not have time to devote to the GAN review, you should not take on the responsibility? It's just a waste of everyone's time and doesn't do the encyclopaedia any good. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Please understand that not only does the above example indeed contain creative expression that was essentially repeated in the article, there were several instances of close paraphrasing for just that source. If there are multiple egregious copyright issues, that's grounds for a quick-fail (see WP:QF). Because there were so many, I could not see a reason to keep the review open. Certainly, you are improving the article. But such substantial alterations should not take place within the GAN process and no reviewer is obligated to assist in a major rewrite. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree with thirteens statement of the lack of communication here. @Gitz6666 if you feel that the review wasn't done correctly I urge you to voice your concerns at WT:GAN as this is a more appropriate avenue for this type of thing. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
@IntentionallyDense: Thirteen's assessments that this article should have been a GA and that communication failed are incorrect, though I appreciate their efforts on this article. The article was submitted to GAN with a CN tag, several failed Vs, and multiple copyright issues. I stepped away from the review when I realized I had insufficient time. When another editor offered to provide a second opinion, they never followed through despite my offer to assist them. I stepped in to perform a full review as soon as I had some rare free time. The article was and remains insufficient to clear the barriers to a quick fail, even a week after I initiated the re-review.
While Gitz said I wasted their time, it's important to understand that I spent hours assisting in improving an article that was absolutely not in a state where it should have been submitted to GAN. I didn't consider my time wasted, but to continue this as a GAN would be a waste of time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Just noting, I wasn't saying that the article should have been a GA, just that communication here wasn't optimal. This isn't to place blame on anyone here as GAN reviews are a collaborative process. Again, if anyone, including you as the reviewer, feels that something went wrong with the nomination or review process I recommend you reach out to WT:GAN. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
User:IntentionallyDense I agree.  My mode here has only been to fix the problem, not fix the blame. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@IntentionallyDense Thank you, I'll do as you suggest. I've checked the article again, and I'm quite sure that Pbritti is wrong when they say it has several failed Vs, and multiple copyright issue. As for the CN tags they mention, they were added on the 16 April 2024 ([5][6]) and the next day I submitted the article to GAN without noticing them. The citations were at hand and as soon as I was made aware of the problem, I fixed it ([7][8]). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)