Talk:1130 papal election/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Avoid weasel words like 'so-called' and 'actually'.
   • The section headers are far too long; "Division in the College of Cardinals and the election of the electoral committee" must surely contain words that can be removed.
   • The section header is not a substitute for prose. Do not just make the header "Division of the College of Cardinals at the begginning of the schism" and then make a table. Instead, introduce the table with some prose.
   • Avoid linking dates.
   • Using italics for determining who is in favor of whom, it not in line with the MoS. Instead, for instance mark with an asterisk (*) or a dagger (†).
   • Do not use curly quotation marks (“...”), but straight ones ("...").
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References go after the punctuation to ease readability.

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   Place the first image in the top right. Avoid forcing image sizes (due to accessibility) and also avoid 'sandwiching' text between two images (this causes problems on low-resolution screens). Instead of forcing image sizes on portrait-aligned images, use the 'upright' syntax.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Placing review on hold. There are some minor issues that need to be seen to. Otherwise it is a well written and interesting article. Keep up the good work. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that all faults mentioned in the review has been eliminated. I've included also some additional sources and references to clarify some questions and discrepancies that exist in different accounts. CarlosPn (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2009 (CET)

Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)