Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope Sisinnius/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2023 [1].

Pope Sisinnius

[edit]
Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just wrapped up Henry II of England, and it was quite the doozy, so I thought it would be a good idea to nominate a smaller, simpler article. This pope reigned for only 20 days, a fascinating story indeed. The article recently passed through GA thanks to Pbritti and received a PR from Aza24. Please keep in mind that I will be embarking on a month-long international trip on the 28th, so responses to queries after then will be met with a delayed response. Apologies for any inconveniences, and enjoy reviewing. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

No images (t · c) buidhe 23:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Buidhe. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No images, but are there no images that could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion came up at the GA review, where it was decided that any image would be anachronistic and inappropriate for usage in the article, seeing as no contemporary/near-contemporary depictions of Sisinnius are extant. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I read this as a GA, I was impressed with how much this article felt like a typical short FA. Short of UL, Aza24, and me somehow missing a major source on this topic, I have a hard time imagining this doesn't meet the FA standard. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Pardon? Is something the matter? Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

[edit]
  • Did he not technically hold the title of Pope as we use it now? I only ask because you twice refer to his holding the post of "Bishop of Rome" but don't actually use the word Pope to refer to him..........
The terms are practically synonymous, but I have seen other GA-class Pope articles say "Bishop of Rome" instead of "Pope", so I have done so here as well. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was likely not a member of the upper-class (like many of his immediate predecessors)" - does the bit in parentheses means that his predecessors were upper-class or weren't? There's a hint of ambiguity, at least to me....
It means they were not. I was actually unsure about the wording myself, but then I realised that "He was likely not a member of the upper-class (unlike many of his immediate predecessors)" would actually mean that his predecessors were upper-class. But I do understand the confusion; let me know if I need to reword. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Like many of his immediate predecessors, he was likely not a member of the upper class"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I can't believe I didn't think of that! Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, when used as a noun, "upper class" does not have a hyphen
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I believe all your comments have been addressed. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim

[edit]
  • I'd read the article last month, just after it had been GA-nominated. I found it a good, concise, informative read. Taking a quote from the GA review "it fulfills the elevated FA standard of "comprehensive". Comparing the article against its sources and two other good sources on popes, the article provides all major points and reflects the limited primary sources involved while avoiding speculation". I will assume that the sources verify the text; aside from that, I have just one query: could you de-capitalise the "The" from Levillain's quote and remove the preceding comma? i.e., "Philippe Levillain stated that "[t]he concision of ...". Otherwise, the capital T sticks out like a sore thumb (per MOS:CONFORM: "It is not normally necessary to explicitly note changes in capitalization. However, for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets: "The" → "[t]he".") Whatever happens, support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem, Tim; it has been done according to your word. Thanks for dropping by the review to offer your comments and support. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by NØ

[edit]

I support this article for promotion based on the high-quality and engaging prose. I'll leave the assessment of comprehensiveness, etc. to others due to low familiarity with the subject matter. Regards.--NØ 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Serial

[edit]
Opposing per Unlimitedlead, who has previously stated, "unfortunately, I do not believe this article fufills the FA standards... there is very little information on the [topic] itself". Which I very much agreed with, and my previous remarks are as accurate here: "While there are no strict length requirements (but then, WP:FA? only has eleven requirements of anykind; everything else you see here is frankly custom and practice), WP:GVF makes it pretty clear that the criteria for FAs is basically that of GAs but writ large. Supersized in quality; but also, presumably, in quantity. At the moment, our lowest-length FA is Miss Meyers, at 680 words; [a different article] is ~20% less than that. As a GA, it only has to be "Broad in its coverage"; as a FA it has to "stay... focused on the main topic" as well as contextualize it. At the end of the day, we have to follow the reliable sources. If RS have not covered a subject, however niche, then we cannot. We cannot write the RSs for them. If, in future, the topic is picked up in (high-quality) RSs, we can (and should) follow suit. But until then, we cannot write an article without the sources, and we certainly can't write a featured article without multiple high-quality ones."
There are two ironies. Firstly, the article Unlimitedlead previously opposed was actually longer than this one; secondly, they subsequently agreed with my opposition on similar grounds to their own (or, or, "my underlying attitude towards this article are exactly what SN expressed concerns about"). Normally I would recommend revising and resubmitting, but if reliable sources haven't found much more to say about him than this, then it's unlikely they will ever do so—even the Vatican's own archives, which run to something over 50 miles of manuscript—aren't particularly useful before Innocent III (now there's a pope to get your teeth into: was he vicar of Christ, or lord of the world...?).
In a nutshell: this is even less comprehensive than another FAC the nom opposed; I am not so blessed as to establish such a shade of nuance. Even so, nice article; cheers. SN54129 14:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129, I am sorry that you feel that way. However, I feel obligated to defend my position. My primary reason for opposing the Cross of St James FAC was that the heraldic symbol has never had, and probably never have, noticeable academic coverage. In this article, as @Pbritti said, there is pretty much every single aspect of comprehensiveness one could find about Sisinnius. While constructing the article, I ran through several RS, and they absolutely mentioned Sisinnius; due to the subject's short reign, of course the article would be shorter, but by no means does that indicate a lack of notability or comprehensiveness. Length has never been a significant matter of concern at FA; rather, an article's quality determines its eligibility to be classified as FA. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24 @ChrisTheDude @Tim O'Doherty @MaranoFan As past readers of the article, did any of you feel any concerns over the article's length and/or comprehensiveness? If multiple users feel this way then perhaps a withdrawal would be in order. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, as a matter of fact. The article seems comprehensive to me, as a.) the article states that little is known about Sisinnius before his election to the papacy (the last 20 days of his life), and b.) because he only had a 20-day papacy, there won't be loads to write about. The requirement for FAs is that they are well-written, well-researched, neutral, and stable; this article passes all of them. Looking between Cross of Saint James and this article, it is clear that there is a quality canyon between the two; the former is mostly images, and is tagged for unreliable sources, whilst this article is a short, well-written and comprehensive piece of work, and something I would expect to find in a proper encyclopaedia, like Britannica or the ODNB. I don't see why it should fail due to length, of all things. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very disappointing thread to read, and illustrates clearly a common problem in FAC: Un-Actionable opposes. Giving actionable suggestions is clearly possible, as done by Gog below, but these statistics comparisons in page lengths and all of the Wikipedian jargon does not seem beneficial to the FAC process. If an article is on Wikipedia, it can certainly be a featured article—otherwise it should be nominated for deletion. Unless someone is going to nominate Pope Sisinnius for deletion, why are we talking like this? For the record, the example of Cross of Saint James has major blaring issues to begin with; there are three major academic sources completely uncited in further reading, while three sources of 100+ years ago are used instead.
Can't we view this process as "how can we help this article improve" instead of "here's why this article isn't good enough"? We are trying to build! SN, I have seen your incredible initiative for article improvement; you brought Óengus I back to FA standard in the blink of an eye. I really hope this is not the future of FAC. Aza24 (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning to address a common misunderstanding: I have been mis-cited. I am not opposing on length, but per WP:FA? 1B: comprehensiveness. Mistaking comprehensiveness for length, as above, is sloppy and hardly reassuring.
    But I agree it's unactionable: as I noted, the nom can hardly be expected (even if it were allowed!) to write up their own sources. Unfortunately, not all opposes can be actioned. In this case, nothing short of an expansion of the secondary literature would save it.
    One particular point: I have to draw attention to If an article is on Wikipedia, it can certainly be a featured article—otherwise, it should be nominated for deletion as such an out-of-process argument that fundamentally misunderstands the FA processes (which represent some of Wikipedia's finest work, my emph.) It would probably be raising the point at various policy pages--deletion and notability spring to mind--to see what they think. In the meantime, perhaps you could nominate either The Eagle (1918 film), Haraboti River or Gongs East! for either FAC... or nominate them for deletion. So I'm afraid the argument hardly holds water.
    Thank you Aza24, for Óengus; your work has been noted also. SN54129 14:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to comment.

Attracted by the fuss, I am going to add some comments. I am not fussed by the brevity of the article, I am fussed by what I see as a lack of context. Sisinnius is notable because he was elected as Pope. So:

  • What was the status of the papacy at the time? Politically, theologically, geographically, ecclesiastically.
  • What were the theological debates and disagreements of the time? Where did the papacy and/or Sisinnius stand on them?
  • What was the mechanism by which he was elected? Who were the electors? Is anything known about any of them? Who else, if anyone, "ran" for the position? Who else was even eligible to run?
Some further information has been inserted in the Background section regarding this matter. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was Sisinnius elected? Several of his qualities are mentioned, did any of these effect how the electors voted?
No sources outright say, so the reader is left to infer. Afraid there's not much I can do about this one :( Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The papacy was then, as it usually was, an intensely political position. What is known of his political views? Eg what was his opinion on approving some or all of Emperor Justinian's 102 Canons? Or on Justinian's recent blinding of the Archbishop of Ravenna. Whatever his political views were, did they help or hinder his election?
This information is not known to us, so your following point is what I will focus on. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nothing is known of Sisinnius's political - or other - opinions, it still seems useful to lay out the contemporary situation in so far as it effected the papacy, so a reader can gain an impression of what he found in his in tray.
  • Why did so "many such early medieval popes who were ill and of old age" get elected to the position? What made these qualities attractive ones to the electorate?
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is a bit disjointed or if there are duplications. It is straight off the top of my head as to what seem to me things I would like to see in the article, I may come up with more given time to think. IMO it sorely needs a couple of short paragraphs of "Background". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "claims of overlordship over the Church!. Perhaps one less "over"?
Changed "overlordship" to "dominance". Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and its stationed armed forces". Who does "its" refer to - probably best to specify.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Ostrogothic kingdom's rule over Rome". Which was when?
Added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sisinnius was elected to become the bishop of Rome, likely in October 707, and was consecrated on 15 January 708. The confirmation of Sisinnius' election by the exarch of Ravenna caused delay of his consecration by nearly three months". Consider 'Sisinnius was elected to become the bishop of Rome, likely in October 707, and was consecrated on 15 January 708; the delay being due to waiting for confirmation of the election by the exarch of Ravenna' or similar.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did so "many such early medieval popes who were ill and of old age" get elected to the position? What made these qualities attractive ones to the electorate?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the following sentence clarify your concerns? Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sisinnius's position is referred to as both pope and bishop of Rome. Did he have any powers over and above those of any other bishop. If so, what were they and over what geographical area did he exercise them? Was there any discrepancy between the powers and geographical area he claimed and those in which he could exercise such powers in practice?
The two terms are used interchangably in the article and one does not necessarily imply a different connotation from the other. As pope, Sisinnius would have had nominal authority over all of Christendom and its clergy, though I doubt the Eastern patriarchs would have hapilly went along with this agreement. That is the best answer I can provide using my brain, but I have limited access to sources currently, so citing may become an issue. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we include something on just what the powers the pope had? Ie, could he appoint bishops? If so, in which areas? (And what powers did a bishop have?) Excommunicate people? What else?
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I think I have responded to all your queries. Please take a look and see if everything is to your pleasure; if not, let me know so I can make the necessary changes. Apologies for the delay and for any future delays; it is not easy to edit on a phone while hiking through the mountains of Canada! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are hiking in Canada! Arrgh! I may have to oppose out of sheer jealousy. Sounds great. Enjoy it and don't worry about Wikipedia - it isn't going anywhere.
I will do that, Gog. Surely the mountains and lakes of Canada put those of the British Isles to shame :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed for that claim, I'm afraid. Jokes aside, I drove through the Lake District yesterday; surely one of the greatest parts o' Merrie England. Considering that and the Irish Cliffs of Moher, Canada must be quite something. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
@Tim O'Doherty: "You are hiking in Canada! Arrgh! I may have to oppose out of sheer jealousy. Sounds great": If the Brit admits, you must acquit! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As another famous Brit said: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, [...]; we shall never surrender." I would like to add "we shall fight them over their mountains" to that list. Seems fitting. Mind you, the Canadians are too well-tempered and mature to fight. And, as a representative of the UK, I wouldn't want to flare up any tensions... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
I think that parts of Highlands of Scotland stand comparison with pretty much anywhere. Eg, see the image on my user page, part of a wild camping trip which included pitching on a frozen lake. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am content, I think, with everything except your responses to my last two bullets. Which may just be me being dim. Could you point me to them?
The Ravenna bit is in the first paragraph of the Life and papacy section; the part about the papacy's power has not been added to the article as I am unable to access sources at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I have added some information regarding this matter. Feel free to take a look when you have returned from your vacation. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your own time. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS I loved your summary style summary of the Council of Chalcedon. It seriously cracked me up. (Don't change it, it's fine. And I'm giggling again.)
  • I am still not really happy about the lack of information on what the role of the pope was at the time. Could we include something on just what the powers the pope had? Ie, could he appoint bishops? If so, in which areas? (And what powers did a bishop have?) Excommunicate people? What else? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am having difficulty locating a RS outlining the pope's powers (especially at this early time period), but is it really necessary? I do not believe any other biographical articles detail the position of the subject, and I feel uncomfortable making this article more off-topic than it already is. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Off topic"!? Sisinnius's only claim to fame, the only reason you are writing an article about him, is that he was pope. I am not sure that a reader can understand anything much about him if they don't know - ie, are told - what a pope was and did. I mean, we know little of what he did, but it seems reasonable to put in that space what he could have done, ie some idea of his authority. If not readers are likely, probably certain, to assume that the job description was the same as it is today.
@Gog the Mild: You are correct: sometimes I forget that my readers are not also geeks like myself! I have added a new paragraph to the Religious section. Please give it a look and let me know what else I need to do. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that Sisinnius's successor, Constantine, was his brother. Is that correct?
I vaguely remember this possibility being floated around before, but I scoured all the sources I have and no mention of this pops up. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not known: I have not seen this matter mentioned in any sources. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I have tried to address all your comments. Please take a look when you are free. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good and much more rounded than the original nom, IMHO. Just the job description bit outstanding, then I am pretty sure I'm done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Richards argues that from 476 to 752, the "prestige, power and influence" of the pope augmented under the protection of the Western Roman Empire and later the Holy Roman Empire, noting in particular the papacy's growth in power during the sixth and seventh centuries." You have misread the source. The Western Empire had fallen by 476 and the Carolingian empire did not expand to Italy until 752. It was in these periods, either side of the sixth and seventh centuries that "the "prestige, power and influence" of the pope [was] augmented". See the sentence in the source starting "But in the intervening ..." (p 2). I am also struggling to find a source for "noting in particular the papacy's growth in power during the sixth and seventh centuries"; could you quote the text in the source you are relying on to cover this? Thanks.

I have just reread all of the article and otherwise it is looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Fixed (feel free to reword/ce); the quote is: " of inevitability that the facts themselves belie. What eleventh-century canonists may or may not have made of the writings of Pope Gelasius I is utterly irrelevant to any realistic appreciation of how the papacy changed in the sixth and seventh centuries. The papacy’s power and responsibility unquestionably grew during this period...". Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just double checking. The sentence is meant to communicate that the papacy grew in prestige, power and influence prior to 476 and like wise after 752; and in power and responsibility between 500 and 700. Yes? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Apologies for the delays: I am due to go on another hike to see a lake with some companions. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sisinnius had an extremely short stay on the papal throne, but that is no reason why there shouldn't be an article about him or why it shouldn't, in principle, be featured, IMHO. I note that other opinions exist. The article includes every scrap of information known about Sisinnius and sets this thoroughly in political, ecclesiastical and historical context and so I am supporting promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]

I'll get to the meat of the article in due course, but I'm here to "counteract" SN's oppose and affirm the idea that any article that passes the GNG can, in theory, become an FA regardless of how much or little there is to say about it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{rep[ly|John M Wolfson}} You're "here to 'counteract'" me. I look forward to your doing so. However, please attempt to do so with more than an eight-year-old essay, with less than 30 page watchers, that's been used around 60 times in that period and clearly doesn't have the clear support of the FAC community let alone the broader project. Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses etc. SN54129 08:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Pope Sisinnius ... was the bishop of Rome from 15 January 708 to his death on 4 February." Consider changing this to "Sisinnius ... was the bishop of Rome, and thereby the pope, from ..." (EDIT: I've added something to that effect both for this and for Chris's earlier comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]
This is a good idea, but I would like to keep the Pope articles on Wikipedia consistent in terms of prose/formatting. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, fair.
"had a father named John" consider changing to "his father's name was John" or something to that effect given that people generally only have one (biological) father.
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do either the monophysite controversy or the Ostrogothic kingdom have to do with Sisinnius, his immediate predecessors and successors, or his legacy?
The information was added in response to another FA reviewer; I believe it offers useful geopolitical and religious context. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Out of worry of displeasing the Emperor, the Pope sent the decrees back to Justinian." Did he approve them, reject them, or defer them for later? Why was there tension between the state and church as is implied in the sentence?
I have clarified the sentence. As for the latter concern, I believe this could be explained by the Background section. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Rome, the papal capital" if this really needs to be said at all, say it earlier in the "Background" section.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, this is short but sweet. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, just an afterthought, but is Sisinnius's rule one of the shortest papacies on record? If it's in the top 5 or so for brevity, I think you should add that. I'm aware that there are probably shorter-ruling popes, but I was just curious. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]
@John M Wolfson: I believe all your concerns have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further inspection, you did, yes. If you don't mind, I have an FAC of my own right now, one for the old British practice of ministerial by-elections. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson Thank you kindly for reviewing and supporting. I would be glad to review your FA sometime; I will be travelling until around August so if the FAC is still open then, remind me. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: No worries at all; also, come Saturday (or really late Friday), this FAC will be as long as Sisinnius's papacy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment (support) from Pbritti

[edit]

Several editors have raised concerns about the lack information on this historic figure and whether this subject is capable of fulfilling the FA standard. As it stands, this article already utilizes the best modern references on the life of a man who briefly held one of the most important secular and ecclesiastical offices of the early Middle Ages in the West. While it would be lovely to have additional context, adding some contextual elements approaches original research. Instead, having such a succinct, comprehensive encyclopedic article on an important historic figure should be considered a triumph. Unlimitedlead has written/rewritten a good number of GAs and FAs, many of which far exceed the length of this article. Because of this experience, if this article was incapable of becoming an FA I believe UL would have not nominated it. Not every historic figure requires what would amount to a four- or five-page biography. Some, such as Sisinnius, are wholly understood in a few hundred words. If anything, I would argue this article is a model that similar limited-scope articles should follow. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Username6892

[edit]

I've been watching the development of this article since it was a GA nominee and during that time, I have not seen any expansions of the lead. I think it should be expanded to include a summary of the background section per MOS:INTRO which requires the lead to summarize the article's most important points. I'm new to FA, so if my assessment is incorrect please let me know. ~UN6892 tc 23:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Username6892 Most of the expansion since the GA nomination has been in regards to context, and I do not believe that adding all that to the lead would be beneficial. Let me know if there is something specific you are looking for in the lead. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Pass. The sources are all reliable and high-quality as far as I can tell; the Pocket Guide seems to be a condensed version of a longer work, rather than a popular account. No formatting issues that I could find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I plan to promote his but not without acknowledging Serial's opposition with which, to be honest, I have some sympathy, as I occasionally find myself questioning the real difference between our short-short FAs and a lot of GAs out there. That said, the name of the game is comprehensiveness, not length; the featured content community has long accepted that and the FAC coords are the stewards of the process. FTR I'll note that consensus to promote is not a matter of several expressions of support outvoting a single voice of opposition -- an actionable oppose can trump any number of supports -- but the process involves resolving critical comments, and I think that's been done as far as is possible. Thanks all for their efforts here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pope_Sisinnius/archive1&oldid=1167146604"