Talk:Vittorio Sgarbi
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Standard of English
editThe English in this article is of an extremely poor quality, and almost sounds like a babelfish translation of something written in Italian. There are also some fairly extreme points of view expressed regarding the subject of the article, and these need to be addressed. Safebreaker (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have added the biography section, translated from Italian wiki. It is not simply a babelfish translation - I have done my best with the English, but translations of certain terms, such as the title "soprintendenza ai beni storici e artistici" which Sgarbi held in Veneto, are problematic. The lengthy quotation is especially problematic. BartBassist (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It IS very poor English. For instance, the past of "to run" is "ran". And that is just the tip of the iceberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.45.87.90 (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Biographical content
editI removed the long biographical section, added by Strauss12 at 19:02, 13 December 2012, which seemed to meet all the criteria for immediate removal. It was badly written, unreferenced, largely unverifiable and potentially libellous. It was also unwikified.
This article has always lacked references (no more than two or three at the most). It has in the past veered to & fro between a stub and a fairly long article (deleted by NuclearWarfare at 17:21, 27 February 2011), which was at least well sprinkled with wikilinks. It seems to attract controversy.
The extraordinary list of publications is unformatted and pretty useless in its current form, but I'm leaving it at the moment. Such a long list, added anonymously (by 98.113.150.107 at 20:00, 9 October 2012), seems redolent of vanity publishing? SiGarb | (Talk) 17:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)