Talk:1667 papal conclave

Source tags

I will work on this article hopefully sometime in the next week or two, but since there was a lot of text I felt the need to tag: Triple Crown is not regarded as a reliable source by current academics (Baumgartner classifies it more of entertainment than history.) Miranda and Adams are both self-published sources on their personal academic website. Miranda is a librarian and Adams a classicist: neither of them have academic credentials that would make us accept their publication here as reliable sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Papal conclave, 1667/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Simranpreet singh (talk · contribs) 10:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased to review this article. This is my first GAR, I would appreciate any help and guidance if I get wrong somewhere :). Simranpreet singh (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Concerns:

• "When the conclave, 34 of the cardinals were creations of Alexander VII." This sentence in conclave section seems to be missing something.
  •  Fixed TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• In lead, "Following the conclave all the parties believed that they had elected the pope that they had wanted." There doesn't seem a need to include 'that' and 'had' again.
  •  Fixed TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• In conclave sec, "Since the conclaves of 1605, the College had consistently had 60 or more ..." There isn't a need of 'had' here as well.
  • I've switched the second had to maintained. Per my response to your comments below, the past perfect is needed here to show timing. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Commas in places like "After his election',' Alexander VII had initially...", "Within the College of Cardinals',' a faction of cardinals that...", "The College debated whether it would be appropriate to hold the conclave in the Vatican',' given concerns about crowding", "During his pontificate',' Alexander created 40 new cardinals with 33 of them being Italians." "On the morning of 20 June 1667',' Rospigliosi received five votes during the first scrutiny." Is there a reason for avoiding commas?
  • The main point of commas in English is to separate ideas and mirror natural speech patterns. I tend to avoid them in introductory phrases unless they are needed, especially if there is apposition shortly after the introductory phrase. It makes for clearer English prose in many cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• According to MOS:NUMERAL, "The French has 8 electors who were loyal to them, and the Spanish had 6, while the Flying Squadron had 11." the numbers 8 and 6 in the sentence should be written in words. Simranpreet singh (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Fixed I've also switched 11 to eleven as a switch within the same sentence would be odd. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    • A para in the Conclave sec now starts with numbers and that probably is not preferred as per the policy. It would be better if you could adjust the numbers in between the sentence somewhere.Simranpreet singh (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure, but the MOS isn't policy and meeting MOS:NUMERALS is not one of the GA criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Ah oops, apologies, I think I missed it earlier. :P Simranpreet singh (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• In the sentence, "The conclave was dominated by the parties loyal to the cardinal nephews',' and electors that were loyal various monarchs or members of the Flying Squadron..." I doubt whether the comma placed is correct. Secondly, in "that were loyal various monarchs" there needs to be something in between. Also, shouldn't Flying Squadron be italicized? Simranpreet singh (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I fixed these with a reword (it was worded poorly. Shows what happens when you write and proofread your own work...). The comma there would be needed to connect the two independent clauses, especially now that it has been reworded. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Don't know why but I am not able to understand the phrase "electors that were loyal various monarchs", as already said I think there's something wrong with "loyal various". Simranpreet singh (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
      •  Fixed: missed that the last round. The problem with solving one part in piecemeal edits. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

After examining the article so far, I found out that the article is written in past perfect tense. I don't know if that's alright to use! Simranpreet singh (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, as it is dealing with multiple events in the past use of the past perfect is neccesary to convey timing. The events of the conclave itself are generally in the past simple, while events happening before the conclave or at an earlier part of the conclave are in the past perfect. ​ TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned about link on Vatican: you mentioned that it was held in Vatican complex, wouldn't it be beneficial if we could mention it in the article, maybe in parentheses?Simranpreet singh (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Your Wikilink added factually incorrect information. Vatican City did not exist until 1929. The Vatican Hill and the buildings on it have been a centre of Christian worship and governance for 1700 years, and contains many buildings that can all equally be referred to as the Vatican. The reader is not an idiot: most English speakers will know that the Vatican references a geographic place within Rome (where Vatican City currently is), so there is absolutely no need to explain or Wikilink to it. See WP:ASTONISHME. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see.Simranpreet singh (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on passing the GA! :) Simranpreet singh (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): }}} d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: