Talk:Via Giulia

L'Arco Farnese

No source is given to specify that the Arco Farnese was the design of Michelangelo. Architectural consensus leans toward a less realized scheme along the axis of the Via dei Baulari and the Palazzo Farnese itself. Please Advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:10A:304C:C150:9D4B:C2D:5495:2E67 (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit request

There's going to be a lot by virtue of the article's length, so bear with me:

• The name itself. As a proper noun I have removed the definite article before it.
• After a two-century eclipse [...] I am assuming that you are going by eclipse's fourth definition to mean obscurity or decline. May I suggest using "decline" instead?

Correct!

 Done. Changed.

• [...] from the 1950s onwards the road's fame was renewed to be one of the city's most prestigious addresses. "Addresses" tend to be used for buildings. Perhaps "location"?

Correct!

 Done. Changed.

• Processions squeezed through almost daily since the Middle Ages [...] Partially edited already. When did processions stop?

I don't think that it is important to mention an end date here, since we are talking about the age of Julius II. Anyway, the processions in Rome continued well into the 19th century.

 Done. Changed the wording to say it happened in the Middle Ages.

• As an unintended consequence, the bridge connected the rioni of Regola and Trastevere. Partially edited already. I'm assuming this was an unintentional consequence; would I be correct?

No, on the contrary: the popes started a plan to link the different quarters of the city.

 Done. Changed to reflect intention.

• Julius II implemented many projects in the framework of Rome's urban renewal (Renovatio Romae), a task which was started forty years before [...] Bold emphasis added. What was the year 40 years before?

I would write "about 40 years before". We are referring to the age of Julius uncle, Pope Sixtus IV, which pursued too a program of urban renewal in Rome.

 Done. Context should be clear enough.

• The main goal behind these plans was to superimpose a regular road network with centre of gravity given by the river on medieval Rome's disorderly buildings [...] I don't think this term is used correctly; maybe "focus"?

Focus is good!

 Done. Changed to focus.

• together with the new Via Alessandrina that Alexander VI opened in the Borgo, the Via dei Pettinari that connected the Trastevere on one side and the Campidoglio on the other, the Lungara and Via Giulia created a regular quadrangular division in the city's maze of alleys. Parenthetical thought excised, which is mentioned right below. Can "regular quadrangular division" be called a square decision? What is the exact shape of this division, if possible?

I would say that here the right word is "Quadrilateral".

 Done. Changed to "quadrilateral".

• which according to the original project should have reached the Hospital of Santo Spirito in Borgo too thanks to the rebuilt Pons Neronianus Excised parenthetical thought. Is it super important? I'll try and incorporate it into the paragraph.

Yes, since this explains the real plan of the pope, which was really ambitious.

 Done. Turned it into its own separate sentence.

• the plan intended to separate papal power from the dependence of the city's powerful noble families. Who needed to become independent? The nobility from the papacy or the papacy from the nobility?

The pope wanted to become independent, the baronal families in Rome were powerful and in the Middle Ages built a State into the state.

 Done. Clarified.

• These projects had a secondary, celebrative goal to promote the Pontiff as the unifier of Italy and the renewer of Rome; in 1506, after the end of the plague Emphasis added. The link currently leads to the general disease, and that is fine. However, is there a link to the plague in Italy?

Unfortunately not (yet) ;-)

 Done. Left as is.

• Aside from serving as a means of communication and representative [...] Emphasis added. Again, seems like something lost in translation.

There were three goals: communication between several part of the city, representative (celebrating the power of the church) and administrative center.

 Done. Clarified it to "Church representation".

• After the death of Julius II in 151 [...] The last digit is missing in the year.

1513

 Done. Amended.

• [...] was built on the façade of the beggars' hospice on Via Giulia. This comes up multiple times in the article. Do you mean the front of the building? I'm assuming this corresponds to facciata or davanti.

Correct, it is the front.

 Done. Added a wikilink to the first mention for context.

• parades of carnival floats, and in 1663 the organisation of a horse race with naked hunchbacks during the carnival is handed down. Three things. First, I think we are talking about the event Carnival and not typical traveling carnivals. Second, who handed down the horse race organisation to whom? Third, What do you mean by "naked hunchbacks"?

Yes, this is the famous "carnevale romano"; The source does not say who did it; maybe naked hunchbacked men?

 Done. Can't do anything more without information.

• A machine with fireworks was burned near the Fontanone di Ponte Sisto [...] Was it set off or did the machine get burned and not work?

set off.

 Done. Changed to clarify.

• The building was occupied by poor unmarried girls ("zitelle" in Romanesco dialect) and a congregation made up of 100 priests and 20 clerics who had to pray for the souls of the dead priests. Why did these priests and clerics have to pray for dead priests? Why did these dead priests die?

They had to pray to send the soul in heaven. The priest died normally (illness, because they were old, etc.). It was (and sometime is) a normal custom in Italy to pray for the souls of the deceased.

 Done. Clarified.

• the new façade As above.

front

 Done. Clarified.

• The nobility abandoned the palaces on the street to move to the new center of urban life, the Campo Marzio, and in their place the road hosted artisans and took on a solitary and solemn aspect. Were there no more festivities?

Correct. The road fully decayed.

 Done. Worded it differently.

• The facades facing the river with loggias and gardens, such as the Palazzi Medici-Clarelli, Sacchetti, Varese, and Falconieri had lost their purpose. As above. What was their purpose?

Their purpose was to show the panorama of the river. The walls are much higher than the gardens.

 Done. Clarified.

• Walk through Via Giulia Original header, has been edited. I think it was rendered along the lines of "Passeggiata attraverso la Via Giulia" on the Italian Wikipedia. Since it only mentions landmarks, I have renamed it to "Landmarks on Via Giulia".

This is good. I used also this expression in other articles.

 Done.

• Already in 1570 a public fountain, fed by the Aqua Virgo aqueduct, was planned in Via Giulia. What significance is there in its design being planned on the street that it stands on?

To give water to the people, since at that time the only source of water was the river, but was unhealthy.

 Done. Clarified.

• The palace opposite the Church of the Sienese [...] Emphasis added. Is this the same church as Santa Caterina da Siena?

Yes

 Done. Changed to its Italian name.

* The small church opposite the Carceri Nuove was donated around 1600 by Rutilio Brandi [...] Who was the church donated to?

Maybe "donated" is not the right word. Brandi was the sponsor of the church, the one who put the money for the construction. The church was then given to the Compagnia delle santissime piaghe.

 Done. Clarified.

• It was connected to a residence for unmarried girls (zitelle) and a hospital for sick priests Are we talking about the San Michele a Ripa?

No, it is another institution. At that time there was a plenty of such places in Rome.

 Done. Left unnamed.

• It was abandoned after the war before being restored; however it remains profane. Slightly already edited by me. What do you mean by it "remain[ing] profane"?

Still used, but not anymore as church (in opposition to religious)

 Done. Phrased as being used for non-religious purposes.

• The building [Carceri Nuove] [...] Just so I understand, although it is referred to in the plural, Carceri Nuove is only one building?

Yes, the "New prisons". I am looking forward to write an article about them ;-)

 Done.

• The building was consecrated in 1669, and the facade was finished in 1680. Emphasis added; as above.

front

 Done.

• An inscription in the Vicolo del Cefalo's side wall states that the palace was freed from the census in 1555. Reference removed. What does it mean to be freed from the census?

Exempted from the payment of the census tax.

 Done. Clarified.

• An inscription above the windows of the first floor reminds of Raphael: POSSEDEVA RAF SANZIO NEL MDXX. Is the inscription dedicated to Raphael's memory?

Yes. It means: "Raf[faello] Sanzio owned [this house] in 1520"

 Done. Rephrased.

• Since 1515 the Commune had its own consulate in a palace on Via del Consolato [...] Emphasis added. This wasn't mentioned before; is this still referring to the Compagnia della Pietà?

No, you are right, I should correct it. It is the comune of Florence.

 Done. Rephrased.

• The main goal behind these plans was to superimpose a regular road network with the focus given to the river. Edited by me, and not super important, but this is still the Tiber River we're talking about?

Yes, this is always the same river, the Tiber.

 Done. Changed mention of river to its name.

• [...] the Via Giulia on the left bank, a new representative street through the most densely populated [...] I feel like this was lost in translation. What type of street is this? A major street?

Strada di rappresentanza ;-) . Someting like Champs Elysees in Paris, or Unter den Linden in Berlin. A wide road with majestic Buildings, etc.

Not done for now. Would a boulevard or avenue describe it better?

Avenue, or grand avenue.

 Done. Rechristened as "grand avenue".

• "The Big Fountain of the Sistine Bridge" My attempt at translating Fontanone di Ponte Sisto from my limited Italian. Is that correct?

Your Italian is good: in these cases, I would live the name in Italian (since it is its name), and then the translation in English

Not done for now. I'm not sure what you mean by "live the name".

sorry, I meant "leave (let in place) the Italian name". In principle, I use the English denomination only if it is well established (like in "Spanish steps"). Otherwise, I leave the Italian name with the English translation in parentheses.

 Already done.

• [...] girls dowried by the university of the goldsmiths of Sant'Eligio degli Orefici [...] As in the bride's family receives money from the groom's family?

Yes, since these girls were poor, otherwise they could not get married.

 Partly done. Were they married off to the goldsmiths, and if so, are the goldsmiths from the church or were the goldsmiths married at the church?

:-) No, the goldsmiths gave them only the dowry, then they got married quite normally, as soon as a young man made a proposal of marriage: without dowry, was almost impossible to find a man. The link between goldsmiths and church is only that Sant'Eligio was the church of the goldsmiths in Rome, managed and funded by them. It is quite possible, but not a must, that a goldsmith got married in Sant'Eligio.

 Done. Clarified and fixed.

• After Rome became the capital of the Kingdom of Italy in 1870, the regulation of the Tiber banks began in 1873 by constructing Lungoteveres, which since 1888 were erected along the road and caused the destruction of the church of Sant'Anna dei Bresciani. I currently left "regulation" as is. Did the construction require demolishing the church to make room or was is it a consequence of diverting the Tiber's flow?

It was a consequence of the erection of the giant walls around the river.

Not done for now. Again, was the church intentionally destroyed for the project or was it unintentionally destroyed after the giant walls around the river were built?

Yes, Sant'Anna dei Bresciani had to be demolished, since it lay near the Tiber.

 Done. Changed with clarification.

• The fountain diagonally opposite Palazzo Farnese was built around 1626 at the expense of the Farnese. Did they pay for the fountain willingly or was it bad for them?

Of couse willingly: they were at that time one of the richest family in Europe (look at their palace and you will understand how rich they were... :-))

 Done. I had to ask because "at the expense of" is an idiomatic expression that is more commonly used to describe "to the detriment of someone" (definition 3), though your use (definition 1) is also valid.

• On the ground floor is the main door and above it is a balcony on consoles, flanked by three windows each. A door opens into the yard with three arcade orders [...] Emphasis added. I found the wikilink to architectural consoles and I changed "portal" to "door" (from "la porta"?), but is there more information on "arcade orders"?

A portal (architecture) is more than a door, is a large, high, adorned door.

 Partly done. Reverted to "portal", added wikilink to first mention to establish context. I am still not sure what you mean by arcade orders. I understand what arcades are now and have wikilinked it, but what is an "arcade order"?

An order is an Order of architecture, but in this context you can translate it as row. Three rows of arcades, one over the other.

 Done. Saying they're stacked on one another should be enough.

• It was placed against the wall in 1903, losing most of its charm. In reference to the metal fleur-de-lis, what does "placed against the wall" mean?

No, the fountain, which before was in a little piazza, was put against a rough wall, losing its charme.

 Done. Changed verb.

There are a lot of images rendered in-text as links titled (Fig.) I think the intention behind doing this was to keep the images in their relevant sections, but perhaps creating a gallery at the bottom of the page and linking back up to each section might be better? There are also others in the text that I have not tagged above. I have converted each landmark into its own section to make it easier if you choose to do so.

No, I don't think that the gallery is a good idea, since as it is now the reader reads the info, clicks on "fig" and sees at once the building. With a gallery it has no way to see the image while reading the text. I mean, the flow direction should be text -> image and back to text. I found this system on the German Wikipedia (in my opinion by far the best wiki) and I think it is genial.

 Done. I'll leave them as is.

Thanks!

And now some info about the genesis of the article: I started with a German - English translation of the German article, which unfortunately was without references (they used basically only a web site in Italian, hardly a RS). So, as first I had to reference everything with solid sources (and correct in many places) . While doing this, I found that the history part was very weak, so basically I enhanced it a lot. The "landmarks" part remained more or less as it is in the German wiki. At the end of this, I translated the English version in Italian. So, it is the other way around, as most people imagine. Logic, isn't it? ;-)

English aside, @Tenryuu: did you like the article? Thanks again! Alex2006 (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward to your responses! --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: Thanks for your answers. While I've acted on most of them and did my second copyedit off of those, there are a few that need further clarification and I discovered two new questions that I had that I missed on my first pass. The bullet points have been reorganised such that the answered ones are all at the top and the unanswered at the bottom of the list. I will wait for more of your answers before I start my 3rd copyedit. Yes, I quite enjoyed reading this article. Hope to hear from you soon! --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: Added a question about whether the river that was given focus to is the Tiber in the questions up above. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 01:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Answers done! I am glad that you enjoyed the article! Alex2006 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: Everything looks good to me! I've completed my third copyedit and will consider the request complete. Let me know if there's anything else you need. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:, many thanks! I will read the article again and fix possible problems (not of language, of course, but of meaning): if I will have problem with the language I will ask your help. Then I will put the article into the GAN queue. After the end of the GA process for Via Giulia, I think that I will propose a couple of other articles (no fear, they are not so long ;-)), and if you like I can come back directly to you to copyedit them. Cheers and happy Easter! Alex2006 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Alessandro57, best of luck! When you're ready for those other articles to be copyedited, either leave me a message or put it in WP:GOCE/REQ. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Via Giulia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Copyvio check looks clear
• Images all seem appropriate, perhaps work on layout - a gallery might be more functional for the individual landmarks

The problem with the gallery is the bidirectional navigation. There is a way to achieve it?

 Done.

• The list layout in prose format of the landmarks should be converted to either a list or entirely standard prose

Actually in the two articles which I wrote before this one (Borgo Nuovo (Rome) and Borgo Vecchio (Rome)), I did as you suggest, but I was not satisfied, since I was missing a structure in the landmark section. This article was born as a translation of the German one, and there I found this kind of structure, and I liked it. The problem is that if we convert it to a list, I am afraid that there is too much text, and in plain prose, as I wrote, we lose the structure.

• Coverage of location and denominations is bare - location also needs some ref(s)

 Done.

• Quite a few of the sources aren't accessible, so AGF, but I do question the use of inscriptions or Dante's Inferno as reliable sources. Surely there's at least one academic who at least commented on these things?

I moved Dante's Inferno citation where it belongs and I substituted it with a RS (not difficult, since it is one of the most famous informations about 1300 Rome). About the inscriptions, I have still to check, but consider that some of them are just reported here, they are not meant to be refs. I moved all of them in the footnotes section (another advantage of the template you suggested).

• There are a few parts missing refs

I know. As I said, the Germans used as reference an Italian web site which is fully unsourced, :-( so the first thing that I had to do was to find RS for the text. In doing that, I found a lot of mistakes, so basically I rewrote a good deal of the history part. See my comment below about sources.

• Ref formatting can be improved - I suggest using Template:Sfn. It's the same style as used now, but actually links the refs to the source. This will also make identifying ref errors easier. (At the moment, everything is highlighted as a ref error using the script I do.)

 Done. Changed to sfn.

• Actually, is it possible to split the landmarks out into their own List of landmarks on Via Giulia article?

Of course it is possible: but for which reason? Do you think that as it is now the article is too long?

• The landmark sections are all consistently low on refs

See above. I will do my best to fill them. The problem is that until now here the libraries are closed due to COVID, and a lot of my books are in Rome, also unreachable (borders with Italy are still sealed). :-(

• 'Trivia' is not a standard section. What is the trivia about and where does it belong. Also, is its inclusion DUE? I think that Zola's description of the road probably deserves coverage itself, not just a trivial mention that it exists.

 Done. I removed it.

• More comments to come, but some work on this, and discussion on some points, should happen first.

Overall

•  On hold This requires quite a bit of work, but I think it has GA potential. Kingsif (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hallo Kingsif, and thanks for your comments! Today I started to do some work here. Unfortunately since a couple of weeks I have a health problem related to my two months of home office with PC, so my efficiency is low. However, I will try to do my best. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the difficulty in using sources at the moment, and look forward to seeing your work. I suggested the split, not because it's too long, but because I think there's a lot of coverage of the important history of the road and the landmarks separately, and each is a notable subject. I'm not sure what you mean by "bidirectional navigation", could this be clarified? Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand. From one GA, two GA then? ;-) About bidirectional navigation, I will explain it with an example: now, if I am reading something about a landmark, I have its picture to the right, more or less in correspondence with the text: if we put all the pictures at the bottom of the article, the reader has to scroll a lot, search for the right image, and maybe go back to the text. I think that this is very inefficient, unless we find a way to navigate back and forth between text and image. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want ;) My concern is that to make the images fit inline, they have to be quite small, whereas they serve the purpose of illustrating the landmarks better if they are larger. Each individual section could have a gallery, where there are multiple images (see what I did here for what I mean); where there is only one image, it could be made larger and a {{clear}} template used to stop it from overlapping the section below. (An alternative would be a large gallery/table at the bottom with links between this and each section). Kingsif (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I will try to implement the first option, I think that it is the best one. Regarding the sources, it looks like the Swiss government will reopen the libraries for loans at the middle of June. The problem is that the book which I need (listed under "further reading" in the article) has been loaned in January. Usually loans last one month, but due to COVID all the loans have been extended, and the book will be given back not before August (unless the borrower when will get the notice will bring back the book before). :-((( Alex2006 (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: That is annoying, I know how useful libraries are - is there no online version to help? Best of luck with the improvements so far, I'll add some prose comments when the formatting has been finished :) Kingsif (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif:, unfortunately not, but I hope that the guy who has been keeping the book since January will give it back as soon as I reserve it. :-) Sorry for my slowness in working, but I have some health problem due to two months of homeoffice and the physician told me that I should not spend too much time in front of a computer. Anyway, I changed the location of the pictures in the landmark section. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: Have you managed to get your hands on the book? Kingsif (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif:, telepathy :-) I wanted to write you today: I will get the book in a week. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Status query

Alex2006, Kingsif, it's been another five weeks; where does this stand? I've noticed that Alex2006 has been more active at Wikipedia recently; might we hope for a final resolution soon? Thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been assuming that even after getting the book, Alex has had to spend some time reading it again :) I see you've pinged, so I hope a reply comes through Kingsif (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Kingsif, thanks for writing! At the moment I am still in vacation (with the book :-)). Next week I will start to work, I promise! :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Alex2006, I've noticed that you're making a lot of edits over a number of weeks. Can you please keep us informed as to your progress? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello BlueMoonset, Kingsif. After having recovered and read the book (a wonderful large volume almost 500 pages long that I now bought on the antiquarian market :-)) I have almost completed the insertion of the references of the descriptive part, and now I am checking the historical part. I have been stopped for several weeks because unfortunately I had an infection at my left eye. Luckily till the end of 2020 there are only two and a half months left...Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Alex. If you can ping me/us when you're done with the update, I can review changes. Kingsif (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex2006, Kingsif, it's been another two months. How much is left to do, and how much longer do you think it will take to do it? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Kingsif, the next two weeks I will be in vacation. My work will be ready for review by then (4th of January, 2021). Thanks and have a happy and healthy Christmas, Alex2006 (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, BlueMoonset, article is ready for review! I am happy to remain at your disposal for comments, reproaches :-) and modifications. Thanks for your patience and have a good year! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Resume review

It's been a while, so I'll just go again.

• Copyvio check seems clear

It is interesting that the program found most similarities with a source (Morelli) which I didn't even read (the reason is that it has no refs or sources). Are we sure that it works correctly?

Of course; it searches the entire internet and anything archived on the internet, not just sources in the article, as intended. Most people obviously don't attribute their copyvio, so it searches everything it can find. This is also why you have to look at the content it flags: most of the similarities are proper nouns of the inscriptions you've quoted, so nothing of concern, and things that are likely published in a lot of places. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right (as almost always :-)) @Kingsif:. I checked the source and the largest similarity concerns the quotations from Vasari, which obviously are present in practically all the sources dealing with the street. Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nearly every citation has a harv error, so it's not clear which reference is sourcing what. You can get one of the user scripts that flags them to help identify which aren't - I'd list but it's really most of them that show errors. If that's too much, a simpler ref format (everything inline) would not produce errors and might be an option

I think that the errors were by the two sources with more than an author. I repaired them now. Hopefully... Done.

• The location and denominations sections aren't big enough to sustain whole sections. Is it possible to combine them if there's nothing more to say? Otherwise, incorporating the facts into the relevant part of the history may help make the section balance more even. This isn't strictly necessary.

I have to think how to solve it. Actually this is kind of standard (by me :-)).

Both Location and denomination are now integrated in the lead.  Done.

• Can the first history section be broken up; the single paragraph takes up more than my screen, so to a reader the prospect of the whole article being a wall of text is not good.

 Done.

• What is the intended meaning of "attended" in this was attended above all by pilgrims coming from the north?

Actually I meant "frequented", but I changed it with "used".  Done.

• There's several instances of year spans used (e.g. "(r. 1294-1303)"), but they use a hyphen rather than an en-dash or a span template, could they be fixed?

 Done.

• Do Jubilee and stampede really need wikilinks?

Corrected Jubilee (there is a dedicated article for the Catholic Jubilee), removed Stampede.  Done.

• Why are images wikilinked? I.e. the "(inscription)" in built across the Tiber (inscription) and around the Campo de' Fiori (inscription) leading to images of the afore-described for no discernible reason: if the images are sourcing the statements, it should be in a citation. If it's there for flourish, just add the image.

 Done.

• This long history paragraph is still a bit storytelling, there's narrative flair rather than encyclopedic tone. E.g. In fact, due to the power in the city - language like "in fact" is often narrative and authorial, Sixtus IV took the occasion of the jubilee is unnecessary flair for a simple statement/taking creative liberty (it's treating Sixtus IV as a character and giving him personality/motivation, and should just say "On X, Sixtus did Y")
• noble families of popular extraction what is "popular extraction" supposed to refer to? To me it seems like a poor translation of something about social hierarchy, but it's utterly meaningless

Maybe "folk background" is better... Done.

• Expropriating (who is he, Chávez!?) should probably have a wikilink

Another false friend...I don't know why, but I never liked Chavez: he always looked to me like a wannabe of Che Guevara.  Done.

• to hit the property income of the city nobility - "hit" is both informal and very unclear

"to reduce the property income of the local nobility"  Done.

• In the last sentence of the opening history paragraph, what is the random (Fig.) doing? Is this another inscription thing, and please can there be no more of them?

 Done.

• thus creating the conditions for the opening - vague. What conditions are created and what relevance does this have to a street opening and another street widening?

The widening of the via peregrinorum is part of the road works started by previous popes. The opening of the Porta Settimiana in the Aurelian Walls was the precondition for the construction of Via della Lungara, which would have connected Ponte Sisto (inside the walls) to Borgo and the rebuilt Nero's Bridge, creating with Via Giulia the "circuit" that Julius II had in mind. I know that all this is quite difficult to visualize for those who do not know roman topography, and I'm wondering if a map of the city with the works mentioned in the text would not make sense...

• More specific and less flowery language is needed throughout this part.

About "flowery": when many years ago I went to study in the USA, several professors and colleagues complimented me on my sophisticated language. I was surprised at first, but then I understood why: in the English language there are two words for most concepts, one of Latin origin (usually French) and one of Germanic origin (usually Anglo-Saxon). As an Italian, it was much easier for me to remember and use the words of Latin origin, and here is where the fancy language comes from. To this must be added that many Anglo-Saxon scholars of Italian art and culture (e.g. Richard Krautheimer, American by adoption), spending much of their time in Italy, also tend to use words of Latin origin in their works. But back to the problem: I tried to simplify the English of the article. If this is still not enough, I might ask the kind colleague who did the copyedit to give it another run.

• by his uncle, Pope Sixtus IV (r. 1471-1484) - since ol' Sixtus has already been introduced and discussed, the dup wikilink and repeat of the yearspan are unnecessary. Adding yearspans at every instance of a name is terrible for flow, too.

Removed all multiple wikilinks by popes. Yearspans only at the first occurrence. I found out that there is a nice template for the pope's reign, I used everywhere.  Done.

• The Lungara had the dual aim to relieve the pilgrimage route to Saint Peter[23] and transport goods coming from the Via Aurelia and the via Portuense roads towards the centre of the city. The Pope intended for it to reach Piazza di Santa Maria in Trastevere and the port of Ripa Grande. [24] Moreover, the street, overlooking the river, was going to represent the place of the cultured and refined otia of the Roman upper class, who in fact built some of the most luxurious suburban residences in the city there.[25] - awesome detail on a different road! (Irrelevant, remove)

I don't think that mentioning the Lungara in the article is irrelevant, because its construction is a part-like Via Giulia-of Julius II's Project (which btw gives the name the the section) and is mentioned by all the sources (primarily Tafuri). However, I have shortened the part describing it, and removed the otia from the text.  Done

• There's a lot of instances of spaces, even double spaces, before citations. I've fixed some examples, but can refs be kept tight to the word/punctuation preceding them

All spaces before citations removed.  Done.

• to superimpose a regular road network with the focus given to the Tiber by medieval Rome's disorderly buildings - what? I know what all these words mean, but sadly not in this order

Sentence reordered and corrected.  Done.

• Also the ending of that run-on sentence, the city's maze of alleys, is a bit storytelling.

What do you think about "chaotic web of narrow streets"?

• The center of the city would thus have shifted towards - run-on sentence, it gets hard to follow all the information and the clauses get out of line. Finding meaning in the sentence and how the clauses relate is hard. It could be reworded or broken into multiple sentences.

After long thoughts, I reworded the sentence so, and moved it below: "As a resulting consequence of the project, the area around the Vatican and Trastevere would have been enhanced at the detriment of the Capitoline Hill, symbol of the Roman nobility's power."  Done.

• Following these last few comments: abject confusion then re-reading is necessary for... a lot of this. Which isn't a positive. Given the extra spaces and missing punctuation, I think it might need a copyedit in general: I don't want to fail it on not meeting style criteria after so much work has been put in, but also with so much work put in I'd hoped it would be more readable. If I was just picking this up for the first time, I'd be asking if anyone had prepared it for nomination. Can you turn the prose around in the next week?

Please see my comment about "flowery" above.

• The building was supposed to face - what building? Is any of this paragraph relevant?

The building here is the Palazzo dei Tribunali. Changed.  Done. Is the new Piazza relevant:? Yes, at least for Tafuri, Portoghesi, Frommel, etc.

• At Giorgio Vasari writes:, the ref should come after the comma, before the block quote, not in a paragraph of its own afterwards.

• Also should be "wrote", MOS:TENSE

 Done.

• The word center has been spelled differently in the last two paragraphs; please pick one form and be consistent. British ("centre") is probably the most relevant form.

 Done.

• Julius II, in serious difficulty in his relations with other states, preferred not to force the hand, pretending that the anti-papal pact had been an agreement in his favour - storytelling. It sounds like a great soap opera summary, though

Here I did some rewording, trying to keep the meaning however.  Done.

• Yeah, there's a lot of duplicate wikilinks.

Most of dup wikilinks removed.  Done.

• Comment reminder to self to come back to the prose history.
• Landmarks section looks good!
• @Alessandro57: comments, concern Kingsif (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif: thanks for your fast review! I will address the different points (although not sequentially) and I will ping you when there will be enough points to be discussed. Thanks again! Alex2006 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Kingsif: I think that I have solved a great part of the problems you have raised. About the language, please see my comment above about "flowery". Thanks a lot in advance for your review! Alex2006 (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Alessandro57: "Flowery" wasn't about the difference between Latinate and Germanic terms (I also have experienced this, I grew up in a mixed English-Spanish home and while UK universities expect the more sophisticated Latinate words, US universities were impressed). It's about exaggerated elucidation. Having said that, I can see the copyedits throughout and it looks much better! GOCE reviews don't always change words, but it's looking good. The history section all looks great, except the phrasing of Via Giulia too was not spared from the demolitions that disrupted much of the historic centre: significant building demolishments in the central section of the street is still, sorry, too flowery. I also think footnote [a] should be moved to after the ref, since all the other footnotes are like this, but that won't hold it back. Glad to see almost complete refs for the landmarks sections – After a long period of restoration, the church is open to the public again since 1986 is missing a ref and is also poorly phrased; and the refs for the quote block in the 19 Palazzo dei Tribunali section are all over the place. The bold text in the 8 Palazzo Cisterna (Via Giulia 163) and 25 Casa di Raffaello (Via Giulia 85) sections are inappropriate, they should be in quotation marks. That should be all! Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • @Kingsif:, thank you for your explanation: at this point I have no more excuses, it is my style that is flowery... ;-) Maybe it comes from the fact that I attended the classical high school. I have tried to correct the points you have indicated, please check if they are now OK.

Moreover, I wanted to thank you, @BlueMoonset: and @Tenryuu: again for your great patience during this review. However, I now have a much clearer understanding of the process needed to make an article good, next time it will go much faster. One last question: the article, even if it has now been expanded about thirty times, and has reached the "good" status, cannot be submitted for DYK, because it has already been there (although at that time it was little more than a stub), correct? Thanks again, Alex2006 (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)