Talk:May 1605 papal conclave
(Redirected from Talk:Papal conclave, May 1605)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by TonyBallioni in topic GA Review
 | May 1605 papal conclave has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 23, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the May 1605 papal conclave was the only known papal election to result in broken bones? | |||||||||
 | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 16, 2023, and May 16, 2024. | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Papal conclave, May 1605/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jzsj (talk · contribs) 14:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The article was carefully done. After a bit of copy editing for clarification, I judged the article to pass the criteria for a good article. Jzsj (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nice little article. *NOTFORUM* alert, but the Spanish were presumably vetoing everyone who could possibly be a puppet of the HRE? Thanks for this all, good work. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- France, actually. Philip III of Spain was a Habsburg and in the conclave a month earlier his representative had failed to veto Leo XI, a relative of the French queen, in a timely fashion. As an aside, should you want to see another Habsburg-Bourbon feud of a conclave that involved the HRE and not Spain, you could see Papal conclave, 1724. I don't have access to Pastor or Baumgartner at this moment, but I can go back through tonight or tomorrow and see if there are any other notable vetoes. I'm confident there were others on the exclusion list, but they were likely of cardinals who were never real contenders, which is why I might not have included them. I'll do another run through to see if there is anyone else who might benefit from a red link here. Also, thanks to you and Jzsj. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)