Talk:1292–1294 papal election

GA Review

I will begin the GA review by April 21. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Savidan, this is a well-constructed short article. It's well-referenced and fairly comprehensive. The writing is good, although the prose aren't quite brilliant.

There are just a few issues which need addressing before I pass the article:

1. Please refactor the lengthy parenthetical statement in the lead's second paragraph.
2. The lead mentions that this was the last papal election which did not take the form of a conclave. It would be best if you elaborate in the body of the article. I'd recommend adding a paragrap providing details on the evolution of papal elections into conclave form; it would be particularly useful if you could show how this election factors into that evolution.
3. It's not required, but a image would enhance the article.

I'll place the article on hold. Please contact me should you have any questions or comments. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have completed two of your three requests. However, I am uncomfortable with the middle one because it sounds like original research. I have provided a see also link to the papal election, 1268-1271 that provides the information you seek. As for this article, the only real way it relates to the conclave is that the pope elected reinstated the conclave and it happened to stick this time. Savidan 02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Savidan.

The reason why I suggested more information about the role of this election in the evolution of papal selection was because a considerable portion of the lead discusses how this particular election was the last one not constituted as a conclave. To quote from WP:LEAD, "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

What I suggested is to add material to the article's body which expands upon the discussion in the lead. Of course, this should be done only using solidly-referenced material from reliable sources, not through original research or synthesis. Another option would be to remove some of the material from the lead and place it into the body of the article to provide better balance. I usually tend toward expanding an article rather than re-arranging material; however, if reliably sourced material isn't available then it's OK to re-work the lead.

I'd also like to see a bulletpoint-free lead. Try short, simple sentences.

You have selected some excellent images. Great work! They really enrich the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking to see how it's coming along. Majoreditor (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry I completely forgot about this. I can remove the bulletpoints, I guess, but I think the other part of your comment is a double edged sword. If I move it to the body, suddenly there's something in the article which isn't summarized in the lead; so either I make the article repetitive, delete valuable content, or meaninglessly move information aroudn. The fact of the matter is that there is not a lot of germane and sourced extrapolation to make from these sentences. They are assessing the macrohistorical importance of the specific happenings of the election, and are thus summarizing it. Savidan 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving all but the first sentence of the second paragraph to the body of the article and refactoring the second paragraph in the lead to include more information about the election itsself. Your thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Checking in once again.... Majoreditor (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your reply must have come at a busy time on my watchlist. You're suggestion is OK and I'll do it now. Savidan 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work. GA Pass. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

The following sentence occurs in that section: "Two subsequent papal elections may be considered possible exceptions, although they adhered to the laws of the conclave to a great degree: the Council of Constance, which elected Pope Martin V to end the Western Schism, and the papal conclave, 1799-1800, for which Pope Pius VI suspended Ubi Periculum due to the interference of Napoléon Bonaparte.[21]" Both examples are highly inaccurate. The election of 1417 was unique, in that it was authorized by a Council which was retroactively deemed to be Ecumenical and legitimate. In the election of 1417, it was not just Ubi Periculum which was suspended, but also (and more importantly, subsequent papal legislation which had long since rendered Ubi Periculum obsolete. In 1799, when Pius VI died, Napoleon was in Egypt and had been there for months; when he returned, he started a revolution in Paris that overthrew the Directory. He was not involved in suspending any papal constitutions. Trollope, an English protestant with a far from neutral view of the Papacy, and sometimes a flippant attitude, and who relied on unreliable sources, is not a good authority. The whole effort to provide a "Legacy" is strained. Vicedomino (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)