Talk:Pope Francis/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jfhutson (talk · contribs) 04:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Dead links

Comments on the first few sections

Lead

• The first paragraph is still very short.
• I think the ex officio thing is distracting, but its up to you. I would briefly state what a pope is.
• add "death squads" or something after National Reorganization Process so I know why this is important.
• "He chose Francis as his papal name..." the prior sentence does not have bergoglio as its subject
• "Syrian Gregory III" add a Pope in there
• Lead is a little long winded on the humility theme. You don't need to produce supporting evidence here, you should do that within the article. Then you can summarize other important aspects of his papacy.

Personal life

• Usually public figures start with an early life section and personal life goes after public biography.
• You could edit the picture of his college class so it's easier to find him. Not a requirement of course. I don't thick this caption gets a period though.
• Five citations for a basic fact is too many.
• "He was the eldest..." long sentence hard to read

Pre-papal career

• briefly explain the Society of Jesus when you bring it up
• "crush" too informal?
• "He was removed as rector" long difficult sentence. I would first tell us what he did and then say why he was removed for it.
• The source of his conflict with Jesuits is unclear. More background would help
• "Miserando atque eligendo" translate
• "papabile" explain this term
• "In the National Catholic Reporter" is there any doubt he was a frontrunner? If not, eliminate the attribution
• In the dirty war stuff, the 2005 case makes this confusing. You start talking about the original events, then the case, then you go back to the events.
• Focus on telling what reliable sources say happened in the dirty war rather than narrating everyone's opinion, while also mentioning anything that might be uncertain. Move this part into the correct part of the article chronologically.
• I think the whole thing on Jorge Rafael Videla might be undue. The Pope is inevitably going to have many of these mini-scandals, and we shouldn't include something that doesn't turn out to tell us anything about him.
• The whole Fernando de la Rúa section is too detailed. Include a few sentences in the appropriate areas chronologically about his relations with these figures. As someone with no understanding of Argentine politics, I have no idea what's going on here.

Ecumenism with other Christians

• Why is this before the Papacy section? I need to know what happened before you can give me analysis.
• There is a one sentence paragraph.
• The opening paragraph is heavy with Francis quotes. A third party should be used to talk about this.
• Short sections on Lutheranism and Anglicanism.
• The Anglicanism section is difficult to understand for someone unfamiliar with this issue.

Interfaith dialogue

• More Francis quotes that put him in a very nice light.
• Another one-sentence paragraph.

Pause to assess overall

I can see that much has been done to address the issues from the last review. I'm afraid, however, that there are also things that were not addressed, such as short paragraphs, dead links, and sources which the last reviewer did not see as reliable. I'm also seeing some neutrality issues, which were not brought up at the last review. Also, the article is very long, but I can't say it's very focused. For example, the Fernando de la Rúa section tells me very little about Francis, and gives a confusing, detailed account.

This is only my second review, so I'm going to give it some time before I decide. Please feel free to discuss, and I'm happy to request a second opinion if you disagree with my comments. --JFH (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 27, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Sometimes good, but sometimes gets confusing. Organization makes it difficult to read.

2. Verifiable?: Last reviewer found some non-reliable sources which are still there. Examples include thefreedictionary, Toronto Sun.

3. Broad in coverage?: Gets unfocused. Too much detail on some issues, while not actually giving the reader the context to understand.

4. Neutral point of view?: Some parts seem to give too much weight to Francis's own statements.

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: based on prior review

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— JFH (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)