Talk:Renaissance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Renaissance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Renaissance was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
GA Reassessment
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
GA from 2007. Significant unsourced material including entire unsourced sections throughout the article. I had placed comments before hand back in February stating that this would need to be fixed or i'd nominate it to be delisted and the issues still remain. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree: there are just too many unreferenced paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yeesh. Yes. It's in a pretty bad state. Getting this back to GA will be a real project. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delist - lots of effort needed to get this to GA standard. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
crazy postmodernism: "View of Florence, birthplace of the Renaissance"
[edit]Hi,
Anybody who's interested in the topic "renaissance", will be startled to see a HDR image among the few illustrations in the article.
What is wrong with that?
Just that is is no illustration. It doesn't illustrate anything. But instead of the period's classic images someone was able to push his / her (his) photo and place a checkmark in his weekly to do list, like, "insert a pic in the wikipedia article ✔"
The physical location does matter, but we refer to is as Italy.
The view that today's tourists can capture really don't belong in this article...
Please think about this...
(I've gotto go now)
--peter.josvai (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Correct. The template already has an appropriate image representative of Renaissance. And image of modern Florence is already at a proper place down the article. --Altenmann >talk 18:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class European history articles
- Top-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- C-Class history articles
- Top-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class Middle Ages articles
- High-importance Middle Ages articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class social and political philosophy articles
- High-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- C-Class Medieval philosophy articles
- High-importance Medieval philosophy articles
- Medieval philosophy task force articles