Talk:1700 papal conclave

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Papal conclave, 1700/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 18:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Since I have already reviewed Papal conclave, 1691, I figured I might as well review this one too, since it is roughly the same length, deals with a similar subject, and seems to be roughly the same level of quality. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice on improvement to writing quality

1. "...until the death of the childless Charles II of Spain and the political crisis that was anticipated forced the speedy election of a pope that was seen as non-partisan." The phrasing of this clause is extremely confusing. I would recommend changing it to instead say "...until the death of the childless Charles II of Spain. The cardinal electors, anticipating a political crisis, speedily elected a candidate who was viewed as non-partisan." In this instance, I think that it is better to split the sentence up into two separate ones.
2. "...France was the only great power to have a clear policy..." Change this to say "...France was the only major power to have clear policy..." Defining the powers as "great" is not neutral, in my opinion, and it is better to stick with an adjective that is less likely to cause controversy.

   This is a technical term in international relations, not reflective of my opinion on France :) It is also the classification that was used by the source. I've wiki-linked to great power, which should hopefully clear up any confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

In that case, you can simply ignore this piece of advice. I was unaware that "great power" was a formal categorization. I had heard the term used before, but was not aware that it was an official term for anything. I suppose now I have learned something. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

1. "It was clear at the beginning of the conclave that the impending death of Charles II was likely to cause the conclave to be long, because there were a multiple ways that succession to the Spanish throne could play out, and the next pope would be expected to be capable of dealing with them." The wording here is a little confusing. I think it might be better to say something like "It was clear at the beginning of the conclave that Charles II's impending death might elongate the process because the cardinals knew that the next pope would be expected to handle the political crisis in Spain that would ensure thereafter."
2. "...the next pope would need to not be associated with politics..." Just say, "...the next pope would need to be politically impartial..." The negative construction of "need to not be associated with politics..." is rather clumsy and confusing.
3. "Albani's election was at first not favourable to the French..." I would recommend changing this to say something along the lines of "The French initially opposed Albani..." It is better to use the active voice. Passive voice can sometimes be confusing and overly long-winded. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

   Katolophyromai, see the tweaks I have made and let me know if they address these concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I have already seen them and was just coming here to comment on them when I received your ping. Your changes appear to have resolved all the issues I saw, but one of them appears to have introduced a new problem. You now have a sentence which reads: "It was clear at the beginning of the conclave that the impending death of Charles II was likely to cause a lengthy conclave, because the next pope would be expected to respond to the anticipated political crisis in Spain following Charles' anticipated death." This sentence is redundant and unpleasant to read because you use the words "conclave" and "anticipated" twice in very close proximity to each other. You should replace one of the two occurrences of both words with a synonym or at least revise the sentence to remove the redundancies. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the great issue of editing parts of a sentence and forgetting the whole: this is why I always have people check my work. Should be fixed now. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked it a little bit to restore mention of the fact that this situation was apparent from the beginning of the conclave, without using the redundant word "conclave." --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. I generally prefer concision when I go back and edit something, but if you think that phraseology is helpful, I have no problem with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1. After the recent changes, I think that the writing quality is up to par.
2. The article is well-cited and even has links to the Google books versions of at least two of the works cited.
3. Once again, just like the last one, the article is quite short, but it provides a thorough overview of the subject
4. Once again, I could not find any issues with neutrality.
5. The article is thoroughly stable without a trace of edit-warring or vandalism.
6. The portrait of Giovanni Francesco Albani meets the media requirements.

Overall, I think this article is a clear pass. Once again, if anyone thinks I have made a mistake, be sure to let me know. Congratulations to Tony Ballioni on the great work. Are you planning on eventually bringing all the papal conclave articles up to GA status or are you just doing these two? --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, thank you for your review of both of the articles. My goal is to bring all of the 17th century ones up to GA so that they are a good topic. After that, I might work on the 18th and 16th centuries, but I don't plan on touching anything outside of the early modern era. The next two that will be GA noms after I put in more sourcing are Papal conclave, 1623 and Papal conclave, 1669–70, which will bring the 17th century to 50% (assuming they pass). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: That sounds like a great plan. I have undertaken the ambitious task of trying to bring articles about major ancient Mesopotamian deities up to GA level. So far, I have nominated Inanna and Enlil. I will probably nominate Ishtar next, but I have not yet brought it up to the level where I feel like it could pass. In the meantime, I am also trying to bring up some of the articles about ancient Greek deities. I am starting out with Athena; after that, I will probably take on Hermes or Pan (god). Best of luck! --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)