Talk:Pope Adrian IV/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Augend (talk · contribs) 00:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is long! I'm going to take a couple days to read this articles/examine references/et cetera, if anyone has specific comments, feel free to share them.

GA Nomination Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Is it well written? A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Is it verifiable with no original research? A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: C. It contains no original research: D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: Is it broad in its coverage? A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): Is it neutral? It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Is it stable? It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Is it illustrated, if possible, by images? A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall: Pass or Fail:

Questions and Clarification

1. Final line: Ullman suggests that it was Adrian who began the restoration of the Papal monarchy that would reach its apotheosis under Innocent III - is the term Papal monarchy intended to be capitalized, or should it be written as papal monarchy?

Grammar

Couple minor issues; if these are fixed that would be great:

1. [a]lthough his Papacy was shorter than either Eugenius III or Alexander III he bought more castles and lordships within papal jurisdiction: I think most would prefer Although his Papacy was shorter than either Eugenius III or Alexander III, he bought more castles and lordships within papal jurisdiction (per MOS:COMMA)
2. He was also a tougher pope than his two immediate predecessors, says Wickham and his was an "extremely formative" Papacy, says Sayers, and his policy of reform was a legacy taken up again by reforming popes of the 13th century. His Papacy though, suggests Eden, was "fraught with political intrigue and conflict". Adrian has been described as having "theocratic pretensions", although it was also during his pontificate that the term "Vicar of Christ" became a common synonym for the Pope. So regarding this section in general, I'd do a couple things - for one, since we've capitalized Papacy, it seems only logical that we'll capitalize Pope as well (in all instances, both in "tougher pope" and "the Pope"). Also, in articles, I believe we don't cite authors of sources in general, but instead the source itself. For instance, if Eden was working at Oxford, we would say "according to a historical study published by Oxford University... " and so on so forth. Finally, this section is grammatically unsound. I'd rewrite it to His Papacy has been seen as tougher than those of his predecessors and it was variously described as "fraught with political intruige and conflict" and "extremely formative". His policy of reform had a lasting impact on many Popes in the 13th century, but despite this Adrian has been described as having "theocratic pretentions". [**please describe what this means in more detail, to laypersons we have no idea what this is**] It was also in his pontificate that the term "Vicar of Christ" became a common synonym for the Pope. Augend (drop a line) 01:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Nom On Hold

I think, for the most part, this article is excellent. However, I have found numerous grammatical issues as In the 14th century Adrian was recorded in versus In the 14th century, Adrian was recorded in, and inspecific WP:Weasel words such as Probably as a result, he responded positively to overtures from the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I, and also the native barons of Southern Italy, who saw in Adrian's support a chance for them to overthrow William, whom Adrian had recently excommunicated for invading the Papal patrimony, where we should most likely rewrite it as "according to most accounts, as a result, he responded..."

Also, we need a rewrite of the section headers. I believe headers should be in past tense and thus Imperial trouble at Sutri, late 1155 should be written as Imperial trouble at Sutri, and the late 1155 detail incorporated somewhere else in the section, like it is now (I think since late 1155 is already discussed in the section, it does not need expansion). Also see Neutralises Rome, which might be rewritten as Neutralization of Rome. Augend (drop a line) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Status query

Augend, Serial Number 54129, where does this nomination stand? It's been four weeks since the review, and I'm unable to find any edits made to address the issues raised (though surely it should be "brought more castles" rather than "bought more castles" in the first grammatical point). Can work go forward? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: unsure. I'm currently awaiting confirmation that the suggestions are either implemented or objections that the suggestions are incorrect. I haven't gotten that yet. Augend (drop a line) 22:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I'm still awaiting confirmation that the reviewer has finished their review. Cheers, ——Serial ^# 09:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Augend has indeed finished the review as per their comments, not sure what kind of confirmation Serial Number 54129 is waiting for. Juliette Han (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Juliette Han! I realise you're inexperienced, so apologies for the opacity; what I was referring to was the fact that I received the original Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article... but not the follow up The article Pope Adrian IV you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold..., so naturally assumed the reviewer had not completed. Thanks for trying to help though! All the best! ——Serial ^# 10:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Not that I'm explicitly inexperienced, but I can see now that Augend did not put this review on hold technically. What mislead me was their 'On Hold' comment - I presumed that the reviewer had followed instructions for such an outcome, so apologies on my end! Juliette Han (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Juliette Han: I'm striking my reference to your experience, as on a re- read, I realise it sounds completely patronising. And, indeed, you've done lots of reviews! ——Serial ^# 10:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, since Augend has clearly stated in answer to my original query that they are waiting on you, and posted previously that the nomination was on hold even though they never changed the status of the nomination (and some reviewers never do make that change), the ball is in your court. How soon do you think you can have the requested edits done? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, it has been another two months, and you have still not addressed any of the comments made by reviewer Augend, including those in the GA Nom On Hold section above. Augend, at this point, I'd suggest closing the nomination as unsuccessful. It would have been helpful if you changed the status of the nomination to "onhold" (see here for instructions how if you want to be extra helpful), and you still could if you want to be extra lenient and allow more time, but that's entirely up to you: this review has been open for four months minus a few hours at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the reminder! I'll go ahead and allow a couple (two) more weeks, as this article is indeed thoughtfully written and of great detail and high caliber. Augend (drop a line) 06:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this GAN

Apparently I've been getting quite a bit of flak for highlighting the numerous grammatical issues in this article. As I mentioned on my talk earlier, in no way shape or form will an article with multiple grammatical errors receive good article status. Therefore, prior to commenting on the content nuance, it was important to first fix the basic composition of the article. As I mentioned multiple times in the OP, the nominator was kindly asked to either implement the preliminary suggestions or to challenge them. The lack of a response to such a request was, to an extent, rude. Furthermore, SN54129 and others were quick make assumptions regarding my facility of the English language; these assumptions were undue and unsubstantiated. Unless the various compositional, grammatical, and formatting issues can be fixed, this Good Article Nomination unfortunately cannot pass. Augend (drop a line) 19:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)