Talk:1769 papal conclave

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 8, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

Congratulations!!!Eduhello (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Papal conclave, 1769/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Kept as a Good Article. Improvements made during reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm requesting a GAR for this. I have gone through and removed a significant amount of self-published sourcing, which would not be acceptable today. After getting rid of the most obvious issues with the self-published sourcing (the lists based on Adams and Miranda), I see that Adams is still used as a source several times, and that there doesn't appear to be any English sourcing that is recent, and I can't speak to the accuracy of the Polish sourcing, being unfamiliar with those authors. That isn't to say older sourcing on papal conclaves is bad (it certainly has a place as sometimes it is all you can get), but I am uncomfortable basing an entire GA off of it without references to more recent reliable sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This article needs substantial revision. The summary is skeletal. The headings need to be rethought, starting with "Death of Clement XIII', which notes his death but largely provides the historical context for the conclave. The writing is substandard and sometimes written for insiders ("red hat") or in need of clarifying definitions ("crown cardinal" "cardinal-nephew"). Note the half sentence beginning "Respectively ruled at the time...." There are many idiosyncratic usages: "the law of the conclave", "the appointment [election?] of Ganganelli". The point of view is at times not encyclopedic ("Fortunately, he did not press them..." fortunately for whom?). The use of papabile is peculiar (neither too old nor too unhealthy?). There are factual problems. The "territories around Avignon, Benevento and Pontecorvo" were not seized, they were threatened, according to the source, the Catholic Encyclopedia. Joseph II did not travel to Rome incognito, though the figure he cut was unusual. See for example History of the Fall of the Jesuits in the Eighteenth Century, pp 54-5. And what, one might ask, did these monarchs have against the Jesuits in the first place? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible sources

• Derek Beales, Joseph II 2 vols 1997, 2009
• The Jesuit Suppression in Global Context: Causes, Events, and Consequences Cambridge 2015
  • Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    • An older source that current academic historians consider reliable would be Pastor (and it is available online in the public domain). It is older, and tends to use glowing language about holy cardinals, etc. but in terms of facts, it is still one of the standard reference works. This is the volume that should include the 1769 conclave. Right now, I don't have the time to verify everything in here to it/prune, etc, but listing it in case any other project members want to take a stab at bringing this article up to current standards. Baumgartner's 2003 book is also very useful, but you'll also need a hard copy. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• @TonyBallioni: Is this ready to be closed? AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• This really needs to be closed one way or the other. AIRcorn (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Aircorn, I've reviewed the changes people have made since I opened this, and I feel it now is in line with the GA policy. Not exactly sure how to close one. Sorry about the time length on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No problem. There is a reassessment open from December so this is practically speedy compared to that one. I really just try to keep these from getting too stale. The instructions on closing are at WP:GAR (Individual reassessment #8 and #9). Number 8 is easy, 9 is a pain (I have been trying to get a bot to do this, but no luck so far). I will do it for you and link the diff here so you can see it. Thanks for taking an interest in the quality of old Good Articles. AIRcorn (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • diff It is actually not to bad when an article is kept. If it is delisted all the class ratings need to be changed, the green dot removed from the article and the article removed from the list of good articles as well as updating the article history template. AIRcorn (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)