Talk:Santi Romano/GA1#c-Gitz6666-20250418123800-Pbritti-20250418025000

{{atopr

| status =

| result = Unsuccessful. Pbritti (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Santi Romano/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Santi Romano/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|Gitz6666}} 09:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 04:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm {{u|Pbritti}} and I'm glad to be reviewing this article. Looking forward to a bit of a change of pace for this review, as I usually stick to other subject areas. Please expect comments today UTC! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:thank you, Pbritti. I'll do my best to reply ASAP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

::I'm afraid life has happened. {{u|Gitz6666}}, can you wait until the end of this upcoming week for a continuation on this review? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

:::That's absolutely not a problem, I'm also quite busy at the moment! Thanks for letting me know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

::::Excellent, thank you so much. Looking forward to giving your work the treatment it deserves. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Was busier than anticipated—a charcuterie board was involved—but I've now read the article and some minimal outside searching. A couple initial comments are below.

• Consider elaborating on the ecclesiastical law element. As of right now, it's by inference that we're referring to Catholic canon law.
• [https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/34619052/The_Dark_Side_of_Institutionalism.pdf This] strikes me as a source that ought to get integrated. I would note how it even identifies the dates of translations.

:: Thank you. Excellent source, worth integrating. I'll do it as soon as possible (I'm also quite busy in RL and on the wiki). The dates of translation of his major works match: {{tq|Romano, S. [1918] 2017. The Legal Order}}.

:: Your first point is tricky. I know from personal knowledge aka WP:OR that "ecclesiastical law" was not synonymous with "canon law" as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecclesiastical_law&redirect=no our redirect] might imply. By "ecclesiastical law", legal scholars like Romano did not mean the internal law of the Catholic Church ("canon law"), but the law governing the relationship between the State and the Catholic Church. Most of that law was usually described as domestic (state) public law. So it would be worth creating a separate article "Ecclesiastical law" to clarify the point. Now I have the sources, but not the time. And I don't have a source for Romano stating that he didn't use "ecclesiastical law" as a synonym for canon law, so I'd prefer to leave the matter untouched in this article and create an "Ecclesiastical law" article in the future, or at least a section on "Ecclesiastical law" in our "Canon law" article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

:::{{done}} (re new source, De Wilde) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• There appears to be a citation needed for verifying his death, as well as his final years in solitude.

• The publication date of Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano given as 1901 and sourced to Sandulli when it is not mentioned under this name (instead, there is a Principii di diritto amministrativo) and the publication date is 1891.
• The (potentially incorrect) Italian name of Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano is listed, but the Italian name for L’instaurazione di fatto di un ordinamento costituzionale e la sua legittimazione is not. Why?
• Sandulli pg. 6 gives the date of the lecture "The Modern State and its Crisis" (rather than the erroneous "The Modern State and its Crises") as 1908. Page 17 verifies that the essay form (also "The Modern State and its Crisis") was published in 1909. Regardless, the citation and name of the work are both wrong, and the date of the lecture should be 1908.
• {{tq|]]ecclesiastical law]]}} that's a pretty glaring typo.
• More close paraphrasing in the same sentence containing this typo.

If all these issues are found from just the material reference to Sandulli, I really doubt that I should AGF on any Italian sources I can't access. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, @Pbritti. Your points:

:* re {{tq|The publication date of Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano given as 1901...}} Sandulli at p. 5 ft 9 [https://www.ijpl.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Sandulli-Santi-Romano-and-the-Perception-of-the-Public-Law-Complexity.pdf] says "In 1900, his two monographs [...]; the following year, besides his celebrated book on “The Principles of Administrative Law”, his fundamental essay on the “De Facto Institution of a Constitutional Legal Order and its Legitimization” saw the light of day". So, based on Sandulli, 1901 is the correct year and Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano is the correct title. This is confirmed by other sources: see [http://id.sbn.it/bid/UBO1021181 Italian National Catalogue]. {{tq|the publication date is 1891}} you are wrong: this is the publication date of Orlando's book, Principii di diritto amministrativo, also cited in Sandulli.

:* re {{tq|The (potentially incorrect) Italian name of Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano is listed...}}. As I explained, Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano is the correct title. L'instaurazione di fatto di un ordinamento costituzionale e la sua legittimazione is listed together with Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano in Santi_Romano#In_Italian_(in_chronological_order).

:* re {{tq|Sandulli pg. 6 gives the date...}} You are right: it should be "Crisis", not "Crises". I have corrected the typo. {{tq|the citation and name of the work are both wrong, and the date of the lecture should be 1908}} No, the lecture was delivered in 1909. Sandulli says "In the same year [1908], he moved to the University of Pisa [...] delivering the famous inaugural speech". Sandulli, however, means "academic year" (1908-1909) because the inaugural speech was delivered in January 1909. See "nota prolusione pisana del 1909 dedicata a Lo Stato moderno e la sua crisi" [well-known 1909 Pisan lecture on The Modern State and its Crisis] (Fioravanti, Treccani [https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/santi-romano_(altro)/]), "Chiamato a insegnare diritto amministrativo all’Università di Pisa nel 1908, nel gennaio del 1909 pronunciò l’ormai famosa prolusione Lo Stato moderno e la sua crisi" [Called to teach administrative law at the University of Pisa in 1908, in January 1909 he delivered the now famous lecture Lo Stato moderno e la sua crisi] (Melis 2017 [https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/santi-romano_(Dizionario-Biografico)/]), "nel 1909 pronuncio` a Pisa il discorso inaugurale dell’anno accademico su Lo Stato moderno e la sua crisi" [in 1909 he delivered the inaugural address of the academic year in Pisa on The Modern State and its Crisis] ([https://www.giustizia-amministrativa.it/documents/20142/0/10-Romano.pdf/25a36256-681d-1db0-c4aa-171d579ee6ea Giustizia Amministrativa]). To sum up, the sentence {{tq|In 1909, Romano moved to the University of Pisa as professor of administrative law, where he delivered his inaugural lecture "The Modern State and its Crisis"}} was not wrong, but can be improved as follows: {{tq|In 1908, Romano moved to the University of Pisa as professor of administrative law, where in January 1909 he delivered his inaugural lecture "The Modern State and its Crisis"}} (adding "Università di Pisa" as a source). I have changed the article accordingly.

:* re {{tq|]]ecclesiastical law]] that's a pretty glaring typo}} Sorry, I don't understand this. I can only find "ecclesiastical law" in the article.

::*It was fixed by 7&6=thirteen as I was addressing the issues raised in the comments, with their correction published five minutes before my above edit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:* re {{tq|More close paraphrasing in the same sentence containing this typo}}. Ditto.

:Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• 1e. Website is the official biographical website of the Italian senate in Italian, so reliability is safely assumed. All of these positions seem verified, but I think we only need a single citation for all this. I recommend a brief sentence introducing this section and its list.

:: {{done}}

• 1f. Ibid.
• 1m. Ibid.
• 1p. Ibid.
• 1t. Ibid.
• 3b. Confirmed
• 4b.
• 5c.
• 6a.
• 6f.
• 6g.
• 9a.
• 11b.
• 14.
• 17.
• 19.
• 20.
• 22.
• 23. AGF
• 25.

I thought I'd have more time for this and that I could muddle through the Italian. Due to other commitments on and off the project and my uncertainty regarding my ability to actually 1.) verify cited content and 2.) ensure that this is comprehensive makes me believe I am unsuitable to continue this review. Ping me if a 2nd opinion is not forthcoming by next year. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:Hi @Pbritti, I thought I would drop in just to remind that GAs do not need to be "comprehensive", just "broad in their coverage", which is a significantly lower criterion. I assume you are aware of this, but thought I would clarify to prevent confusion for anyone considering fulfilling the second opinion request. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

::{{re|It is a wonderful world}} You are absolutely right. While I meant to say what you posted above (thanks for assuming the best), I definitely misspoke. The "broad coverage" bar is not something I am comfortable ruling conclusively on in this case, much less the higher standard of "comprehensive". Good catch! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:::@Pbritti Hey we are getting close to the new year and it doesn't look like anyone has providedd a second opinion. Are you able to take another look at this article? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

::::{{re|IntentionallyDense}} My Boxing Day is blissfully open. I'll drop by and do what I can! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:@Pbritti regarding the second opinion, is there anything in particular that you are looking for in a second opinion? I may be able to help if you can guide me in the right direction here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Please advise: should I withdraw the current GAN submission, should I start a new one? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I would hold off for a few more days. I'm doing another GA review at the moment, so if we don't hear from Pbritti in the next few days perhaps IntentionallyDense or I could finish it. I have a useful grasp of Italian. — Jon (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::::If it's between withdrawal and me putting a pause on other work, I'll try to assist Jon. I just don't have the same time I had a few months ago, so a GAN requiring a bit of bilingualism is challenging. I can not be the primary editor on a second review, but want to help. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Pbritti User:IntentionallyDense I've made some minor changes in wording and formatting. I suggest that the list of selected works be reorganized, either alphabetically or by date. {{Fixed}} I also think that mention of his racist journal be shortened up in the lead. {{Fixed}}

:::::I do not speak or read Italian, but WP:AGF on the citations. This is a complicated subject on a complicated, controversial, multi-faceted and flawed personage who had multiple careers. Assuming those changes will be made ... but the article is well sourced and organized, treats the subject comprehensively in an encyclopedic tone, is well written and we-sourced, looks like a GA to me.

:::::I recommend that it pass GA.7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am having trouble verifying a couple statements. The paragraph on the Marshall position starting from {{tq|a newly created military rank and the highest in the Italian military}} (a better link is needed). There remains a citation needed tag. I see some extremely close paraphrasing of Sandulli 2009, such as "purge trial at the Council of State's purge commission". There is a lack of information on his personal life. A good example of the issues at hand can be found in the following sentence: "Beyond the content of the rules, they must analyse and expose what happens as a matter of practice: the 'boundless horizon ... of the entire social life'." There is no attribution of who is speaking in this quote (the citation indicates Romano), the quote itself is not advancing our understanding of the Romano's doctrine, and all of it comes from a primary source that fails to establish the encyclopedic relevance of the statement. Barring substantial changes in the next couple days, I'm strongly inclined to fail this due to the failure of addressing tagged problems. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::re {{tq|The paragraph on the Marshal position}} is supported by Sandulli and Virga (cited). Sanudlli is easier to verify since is in English: {{tqb|In 1938 he wrote a famous and controversial opinion on “The Marshall of the Empire”, in which he declared himself in favor of simultaneously conferring this rank both to the King and Mussolini by statute law. He asserted the legitimacy of this act by assuming that such a designation would not have derogated from the current Constitution (the “Statuto Albertino”), by which the King is the Commander-in-chief of the Army.}} As for Virga, the relevant excerpt is this one: {{tqb|Un parere che, secondo quanto riportato dallo stesso Mussolini, indusse il Sovrano ad esprimere un duro giudizio nei confronti dell’Illustre giurista e, in generale, dei costituzionalisti; infatti, secondo quanto scritto da Mussolini e riportato fedelmente da De Felice (op. cit., p. 33), il Re, dopo aver letto il parere, ebbe ad affermare testualmente quanto segue: “I professori di diritto costituzionale, specialmente quando sono dei pusillanimi opportunisti, come il professor Santi Romano, trovano sempre argomenti per giustificare le tesi più assurde: è il loro mestiere; ma io continuo ad essere della mia opinione. Del resto non ho nascosto questo mio stato d’animo ai due presidenti delle Camere, perché lo rendessero noto ai promotori di questo smacco alla Corona, che dovrà essere l’ultimo”.}}

:::::::re {{tq|There remains a citation needed tag}} {{Fixed}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santi_Romano&diff=prev&oldid=1285133751 here].

:::::::re {{tq|There is a lack of information on his personal life}} I don't have any further information about his personal life. I translated and summarised the information I found in the cited sources.

:::::::re {{tq|There is no attribution of who is speaking in this quote (the citation indicates Romano)}} In fact, Santi Romano is speaking.

:::::::re {{tq|all of it comes from a primary source that fails to establish the encyclopedic relevance of the statement}}.This is correct. I will look for secondary sources. I'm pretty sure that quote has already been picked up by many. In case I'm wrong, I'm happy with dropping the paragraph.

:::::::re {{tq|I'm strongly inclined to fail this due to the failure of addressing tagged problems}}. If I'm not mistaken, the "tagged problems" are only one "citation needed" that I hadn't noticed until today. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I have found a good source to support the reference to the "boundless horizon" and the accompanying text:

::::::::* {{cite book | last=Croce | first=Mariano | title=The Cambridge Handbook on the Material Constitution | chapter=What Matter(s)? A Processual View of the Material Constitution | publisher=Cambridge University Press | date=2023-01-05 | isbn=978-1-009-02376-4 | doi=10.1017/9781009023764.018 | url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781009023764%23CN-bp-15/type/book_part | access-date=2025-04-11|quote=For the jurist is one who ‘must have an eye capable of dominating and scrutinising in the smallest detail an almost boundless horizon’, one that covers ‘the whole of social life, which is so varied and protean’. The jurist should not neglect any ‘relation or phenomenon […] since those that are relevant to the law are in reality fused and mixed with others that have no legal relevance’. The ‘jurist’s preliminary task is to isolate and separate the former from the latter, distinguishing them and dissolving their amalgam’.Footnote 23 Evidently, Romano thought that the law – the inner law of institutions – can be spontaneous and unspoken, and yet a jurisprudential inquiry is needed to make it speakable when it is necessary, and especially when one needs to know what in an institution is legal and what is lawful or illegal.}}

::::::::Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I've noted and corrected most, if not all, of the objections. See {{cite web |url=https://irjs.pantheonsorbonne.fr/publications/santi-romano-1875-1947 |first1=David |last1=Soldini |language=French |date=August 10, 2014|publisher=Sorbonne Legal Research Institute |title=Santi Romano (1875-1947) |accessdate=April 12, 2025}}. It should be a GA, in my opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have another GAN that I am reviewing, but I will return and reevaluate the content here this week. I think that it's now in conformity to some criteria but still needs a proper spot-check review of sources (something I failed to do last time). The two editors who have been working on this article have done an admirable job addressing my concerns very quickly and I now optimistic that we'll see a green plus sign on the top of the article sometime next week! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::7&6=thirteen and Gitz6666, I will have lots of time to complete this review on Tuesday (tomorrow UTC). Please expect some more comments, but things look to have shifted in a very positive direction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::While I am sad that I did not have the bandwidth to contribute myself, I'm glad this is proceeding well! — Jon (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I have some concerns about the extensive quote from Soldini 2024 in the "Legacy" section.

::::First, the quote is from the book blurb / online presentation ([https://irjs.pantheonsorbonne.fr/publications/santi-romano-1875-1947 here]) and not from the book. I haven't read the book. I'm assuming that the back cover text was written by Soldini himself rather than the publisher, so perhaps this isn't a major issue here, but if it's an issue, then it affects all the numerous references to "Soldini 2024".

::::Second, and more importantly, David Soldini is maître de conférences (roughly, a lecturer) [https://www.pantheonsorbonne.fr/page-perso/dsoldini#page-perso-cv] and the argument he presents is quite radical and, to my knowledge, not widely accepted in Santi Romano's studies. The idea that Romano had a {{tq| cult of authority}}, was {{tq|Obsessed with the state}}, that he {{tq|will have [would have] put his life at the service of this cause}}, and that his work is {{tq|plethoracic}} (better "plethoric", I guess) strike me as WP:FRINGE views, or at least as not representative of the academic consensus. We may be giving them undue weight with such a long quote. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing everything from a clean slate below. Consulting the above commentary is encouraged but I feel so much has changed that we need to start over. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• The sole image to the article is :File:Santi Romano.jpg. This image is public domain and appropriately illustrates the subject, albeit at a very low quality. The only other non-watermarked image of Romano is already on the Commons and is a low-quality scan.
• I would like to see just one or two other images, perhaps illustrating one of his contemporaries or a place he was closely associated with. This is not mandatory for the requirements of GA.

• EARWIG detected what I would characterize as close paraphrasing from [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1285726725&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ijpl.eu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F10%2FSandulli-Santi-Romano-and-the-Perception-of-the-Public-Law-Complexity.pdf this source]. These need to be addressed. Other readings appear to be false positives.
• The claim of his active support for fascism is cited in the lead but {{tq|conversely, as an attempt to moderate its more extreme tendencies}} is not. They should both be cited.
• His birthdate and birthplace should both be mentioned in the body.
• Do we know anything about him before his legal education at Palermo?
• Say who Orlando is
• {{tq|Romano also joined the public law journal that Orlando had founded in 1891, the Archivio di diritto pubblico, in which he published his first essay in 1894}} This sentence is grammatically confusing regarding who is doing what and when. Did Romano join the journal in 1891 or was it founded that year (if the latter, that's an unnecessary detail). Was Orlando or Romano first published in 1894 (presumably Romano, but grammatically "his" refers to Orlando).
• Clarify that Primo trattato completo di diritto amministrativo italiano was a book series on first mention.
• {{tq|in 1901, he published Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano ("Principles of Italian Administrative Law") and the essay "The De Facto Establishment of a Constitutional Legal Order and Its Legitimisation"}} Unless these two titles are of significance, just say that he published another monograph and essay.
• {{tq|international law and in 1906,}} Another comma needed between {{tq|and}} and {{tq|in}}.
• Some commentary on the contents of the January 1909 lecture would be appropriate, assuming it can be sourced.
• If something was {{tq|most-influential contribution to legal theory}}, some information on that contribution would be appropriate.
• Link {{tq|Fascist government}} to Fascist Italy.

::{{small|Continuing}}

• {{tq|an internationally recognised}} Not seeing this sourced in the article. Feels like light puffery, too.
• I agree, removed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{tq|maestro}} In lead with no explanation, not in body.
• {{done}} (I replaced maestro with "mentor")
• {{tq|most influential contribution to legal theory}} The source uses "most celebrated", which can be repeated or referred to with a more proximate synonym.
• {{done}} (renowned)
• {{tq|"First Marshall of the Empire"}} I don't believe we need quotation marks here.
• {{done}}
• {{tq|with the casting vote of Benedetto Croce}} Overly close paraphrasing here, even retaining the poor English of the original. The correct word would be "deciding", "decisive", or something like that.
• {{done}}
• {{tq|During the Fascist dictatorship, Romano maintained a relatively detached and uncommitted public profile}} I feel like there are some contradiction by the sources cited for this statement. Which source and which passage is supporting this statement.
• Ridolfi 2017: {{tq|Dei tre giuspubblicisti presi in esame, Santi Romano è senza dubbio il docente con il profilo politico meno accentuato}} [Of the three public lawyers examined, Santi Romano is undoubtedly the academic with the least political profile] (p. 5), {{tq|Certamente, il coinvolgimento di Romano è minore di quello dei giuristi militanti che cercarono di dare un vero e proprio fondamento alle teorie razziste}} [Admittedly, Romano's involvement is less than that of the militant jurists who tried to give real substance to racist theories] (p. 7). We could add Sandulli 2009, p. 30: {{tq|Santi Romano asked for and obtained the Fascist Party membership card only in October 1928 (so quite late and, anyhow, in order to be appointed at the Consiglio di Stato). Recent studies by Guido Melis demonstrate that Romano played his role as the President of the Consiglio di Stato with a great dignity, and his appointment did not imply at all a “fascistization” of the Court"}} Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• I see where the problem is coming from: having the lowest profile of three high-profile politically involved figures is substantially different than actually being low-profile. Thanks for providing the passages, but I think it fails WP:V. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Arguably {{tq|relatively detached and uncommitted}} implies a comparison with others who were more involved and committed (such as Costamagna and Maraviglia, who are the subject of Ridolfi 2017, along with Romano); Ridolfi says that Romano was less "political" and "militant" than them. However, I removed the sentence, but felt that we should provide more information about Romano's role under Fascism; so with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santi_Romano&diff=prev&oldid=1286208762 this edit] and the following ones, I almost completely rewrote the section "Relationship with Fascism". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Note also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santi_Romano&diff=prev&oldid=1286211246 this edit], streamlining and adjusting the lead following the recent changes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{tq|"became, at the age of 85, president of the first session of the Constituent Assembly in 1946"}} Why is this presented as a quote?
• Quotation marks removed. Note, by the way, my concerns about using Soldini as a source: we cite Soldini 2024 as a book, but it is actually a book blurb. Also, Orlando became president of the first session of the Constituent Assembly not because of his authority, but solely because of his age (the interim president of the Assembly had to be its oldest member until Giuseppe Saragat was nominated). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Re images, I've added [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Vittorio_Emanuele_Orlando.jpeg this photo] of V.E. Orlando + caption [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santi_Romano&diff=prev&oldid=1285755438 here]. I'm also trying to understand if [https://patrimonio.archivioluce.com/luce-web/detail/IL0000035649/12/romano-santi-legge-discorso-alla-presenza-benito-mussolini-e-michele-bianchi.html?startPage=0&jsonVal={%22jsonVal%22:{%22query%22:[%22*:*%22],%22fieldDate%22:%22dataNormal%22,%22_perPage%22:20,%22persone%22:[%22\%22Romano,%20Santi\%22%22]}}#permalink this image] can be used. See here my request for assistence on the copyright issue. If anyone could help, that would be great.
• Re [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1285726725&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ijpl.eu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F10%2FSandulli-Santi-Romano-and-the-Perception-of-the-Public-Law-Complexity.pdf Earwig], all the sentences marked in red are false positives - they are titles of published works and generic phrases such as "Romano's relationship with Fascism", "plurality of legal orders", "casting vote of Benedetto Croce", etc. The only two phrases that might be questionable from the WP:COPYVIO point of view are {{tq|in September 1944, he was remitted to the High Court of Justice for sanctions against fascism, and subjected to a purge trial}} and {{tq|There are as many legal orders as there are institutions}}. I rephrased them slightly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santi_Romano&diff=prev&oldid=1285765508 here].
• Still far too close. Consider reordering the sentence. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::: {{Done}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santi_Romano&diff=prev&oldid=1286106513 here]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Re verifying the {{tq|attempt to moderate its more extreme tendencies}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santi_Romano&diff=prev&oldid=1285766904 this] should do. A quote from Ferrajoli is already provided in the article. This is a quote from [https://www.nomos-leattualitaneldiritto.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Ridolfi.pdf Ridolfi 2017], pp. 5-6: {{tqb|Proprio in virtù della notorietà precedente, è discusso se la sua adesione al fascismo sia da intendersi come una collaborazione tecnica, che ha avuto, anzi, il merito di isolare le tendenze più estremistiche40 [quotes Ferrajoli], o se, invece, abbia avuto il significato di una vera e propria scelta convinta41. Anticipando quelle che sono le mie conclusioni, dico subito che tendo a propendere per la seconda ipotesi}} [Precisely by virtue of his [Romano's] previous notoriety, it is debated whether his adhesion to Fascism is to be understood as a technical collaboration, which had, indeed, the merit of isolating the most extremist tendencies40 [quotes Ferrajoli], or whether, instead, it had the significance of a real convinced choice41. Anticipating what my conclusions are, I say at once that I tend to lean towards the second hypothesis]
• {{tq|His birthdate and birthplace should both be mentioned in the body}} {{Done}}
• {{tq|Do we know anything about him before his legal education at Palermo?}} I don't know anything, but will update the article if I find something about this.
• {{tq|Say who Orlando is}} {{Done}}
• {{tq|Romano also joined the public law journal}}, I have rephrased the sentence [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santi_Romano&diff=prev&oldid=1285771456 here].
• {{tq|Clarify that Primo trattato completo di diritto amministrativo italiano was a book series on first mention}} {{Done}}
• {{tq|Unless these two titles are of significance, just say that he published another monograph and essay}} They are of significance, but they could be WP:TOOMUCH. Please advise: either we leave the sentence as it is now, or we could drop it entirely, including the reference to {{tq|two monographs on administrative justice – also as parts of Orlando's series}}. I'm fine with both options.
• {{tq|Another comma needed}} {{done}}
• {{tq|Some commentary on the contents of the January 1909 lecture}} {{done}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santi_Romano&diff=prev&oldid=1285804648 here].
• {{tq|some information on that contribution would be appropriate}} {{done}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santi_Romano&diff=prev&oldid=1285807142 here].
• {{tq|Link Fascist government to Fascist Italy}} {{done}}

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Following this exchange at Commons Village Pump, I've uploaded [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Santi_Romano,_Benito_Mussolini_and_Michele_Bianchi.jpg this image] and added it to the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hmm, I don't love the prominence of the logos and believe that this makes it a copyright violation. I would encourage removal. There are people (including myself sometime in maybe next month) who have experience removing logos like that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::: {{Done}} If you or others could help me improve the quality of the image, I'd be grateful. I've written to the Instituto Luce asking for permission to publish a better quality image, but they haven't yet replied. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I would hope that the image is cleaned up and restored to this article. They say, 'A picture is worth a thousand words." And this picture with Il Duce is EXHIBIT A. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree. Incidentally, the image is also a minor discovery, as I haven't seen it published before. [https://patrimonio.archivioluce.com/luce-web/detail/IL3000050204/12/mussolini-e-romano-santi-seguiti-personalita-cui-d-ancora-camminano-lungo-corridoio-del-campidoglio.html?indexPhoto=0 This image] is also quite interesting (Santi Romano and Mussolini walking together in 1931)." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to Gitz6666 and 7&6=thirteen for your hard work on this article. I first began reviewing this article on October 17 of last year. We are now more than six months on from that date. During that time, substantial improvements were made, including the expansion of coverage, improvement of prose, removal of copyright concerns, and insertion of citations.

However, substantial problems remain: portions of the lead remain unsupported by the body (such as the claim about Romano moderating fascism), close paraphrasing is present in almost every sentence reviewed, and there is instability of the article beyond the alterations suggested in the review. For these reason, I must presently fail this GAN.

I understand how this can be frustrating. However, I have hope here. I experienced something not completely dissimilar in my work on Talk:Colorado Coalfield War/GA2, a review that ran from March 2021 to March 2022. I don't doubt that more time and experience would enable the involved editors to return to this article and bring it up to GA. However, after more than six months, I think we should move on from the reviewing stage and allow for a less regimented scheme of article improvement. I am extremely impressed with the commitment and composure of the editors who collaborated on this article and again thank both of you for your efforts. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}