Talk:Pier Giacomo Castiglioni

Unattributed translation

This page appears to have started as an unattributed translation of the corresponding page on it.wp. I've provided attribution above on that assumption. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguous article tag

Despite the article tag, this article is more authoritatively sourced than most Wikipedia biography articles—to the extent that the citation numbers are placed correctly, we can have a strong confidence in the reliability of the material, as it is sourced in a formal, published biographical dictionary entry, and from the NYT obituary (both for the title subject). There are some sentences without end of sentence citations, and for this reason, some tags are warranted; a better article tag might be to call for broader sourcing, not so dependent on the one strong, scholarly source.

That said, the individual who placed the article tag should have placed a Talk entry to indicate the specific problems s/he observed that led to the indicated broad, whole-article conclusion (besides the obvious few omissions). For instance, there are many citations to the biographical dictionary entry, citation no. 1—is the issue that the appearances of these at end of paragraph do not cover the entire paragraph content, or only (as any experienced teacher might suspect) some small part of it? That is, are the statements appearing with citation nos. 1 and 2 actually drawn, in whole from those sources, or were those numbers added post hoc to support some part of the material? (These suspicions are advanced by the preceding Talk entry, indicating that the article began as an unattributed translation of the Italian WP page.)

In short, the question is, what parts of this article are actually reliably sourced, and what, as the article tag suggests, are not?

Toward the end of improved sourcing, the following links, to machine translations of the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani article on the title subject (Vol. 22, 1979), and of the source indicated for the original Italian WP article (from which the earlier English stub was translated), should be reviewed and used where it is applicable. They are currently being placed as Further Reading in the article. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:8C31:FF20:D059:4ADC (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, IPv6. I think I wrote most of the content here, and probably placed the tag too. The article is properly sourced, though it could do with some more citations. It needs more references to assist with making it a better article, and to provide a more solid base for the content. Unfortunately Google-translated pages can never fulfil that function – the quality of the output is execrable, and not useful. Nor does this page appear to offer any useful information over and above what is already in the Dizionario biografico. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The refimprove tag was added by another editor (not Justlettersandnumbers) shortly after the article's creation in 2015 when it looked like this and was filled with multiple unreferenced claims (big and small). I've added a third reference and a bit of material from that reference and removed the tag. There is now no need for that tag when there are multiple inline citations to three reliable sources. I can see no aspect of this article in its current state which requires further verification. If any arise, they can be handled by the simple inline {{fact}}. A large tag at the top of the article claiming that the referencing is inadequate should not be used simply because perhaps other sources could be found to expand the article some time in the future. That's a complete misuse of the tag. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Rating

The Castiglioni brothers—Achille, Livio, and Pier Giacomo were important contributors to the history of architecture and design in the 20th century (in Italy and beyond). It's not clear (to me) what the criteria are, however, these articles (including my recently submitted draft) may merit reconsideration of their rating. Please review and upgrade (if appropriate). Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)