Talk:Angelo Rizzoli (publisher, born 1889)/GA1
GA review
editThe 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: ELindas (talk · contribs) 12:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: AdaCiccone (talk · contribs) 04:40, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be reviewing this one. Expect to hear from me by 16 July at the latest. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to quick-fail this nom because this article is a long way from meeting criterion 4 (neutrality).
The lead has an openly celebratory tone, saying Rizzoli brought "masterpieces" to the screen and describing his company as publishing the "best" authors. The publishing section continues this tone by asserting (worse, in Wikipedia's voice) that he possessed a "golden touch", made a major cultural contribution, achieved "incredible" success and displayed a "vision ahead of its time".
The personal-life section argues on his behalf. After discussing his extramarital affairs, the article qualifies his excuse by saying that it was "partly true," then reassures readers he treated his wife with the "utmost respect." Then it continues with affectionate nicknames, weekly roses and the construction of a hospital in her honour. Sounds like Wikipedia is adjudicating his character, not reporting what sources say.
The extensive account of the family after his death reads more like a moralised dynastic tragedy. It contrasts his supposed entrepreneurial qualities with heirs who allegedly lacked his "grit", made poorly considered decisions and were manipulated by "unscrupulous advisers". The article has a lot of space for eventual bankruptcies, arrests, illnesses, addictions, and suicides. This is clearly undue weight to events outside his lifetime; at the same time, it reinforces the article's rise-and-fall narrative.
Overall, I think the way the article is written now reads closer to a hagiographic biography than a neutral encyclopedic summary, with judgmental tone towards his descendants. To address all of the above, much of the article would need to be rewritten, opinions attributed, promotional and sentimental language removed, and the posthumous family material substantially reduced and rebalanced. I believe this obviously exceeds the scope of a normal GA hold, hence my decision to quick-fail this. Feel free to renominate after all of that has been addressed. AdaCiccone (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)