Talk:1623 papal conclave/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 01:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I will go ahead and review this article, since all the Papal conclave articles are short and easy to review and no one else seems to be taking them at the moment. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This time around I do not have any criticisms that need to be addressed before I pass the article. As far as I am concerned, the article seems to meet all of the GA criteria as it is.

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:
· · ·

Comments

1. The article is well-written, at least from my perspective.
2. The article is well-cited, like the other papal conclave articles I have reviewed previously.
3. The article covers the subject adequately. It is short, like all the others, but the subject matter does not require a lengthy article to convey the information.
4. The article is neutral and does not unfairly favor one side over the others.
5. The article is very stable and the edit history reveals no signs of vandalism or edit-warring.
6. The portrait of Urban VIII fulfills the media requirement, I think. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)