Wikipedia:Peer review/Papal conclave, March 1605/archive1

Papal conclave, March 1605

I've listed this article for peer review because I've taken it through GAN, finished adding all the information I could from extant sourcing, and have finished working on the corresponding list of participants, which is at FLC now. I've asked for one of these before to try to get the main conclave article to FAC, but after reviewing that feedback, decided my work would be better spent on improving the individual articles. Having done that, I've done as much work on this one that I can think of on my own, and would appreciate any feedback with an eye towards FAC. I've requested a copyedit as well from the GCE, but I'd rather do any additional work needed on this while waiting on that to come through.

Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SN54129

Apologies for the delay TonyBallioni, I had some fun and games at FA that required recovery time  :) off the record, actually I forgot about this, I do apologise. It certainly makes the mockery of an aide-mémoire...perhaps a brain-mémoire is necessary  :) Anyway.

A nice article of course, and not of such great length that there's likely to be myriad issues. A couple of things that could be considered:

Lead

At the moment, I think it's still tending to the short side; even with the length of the article as it is, I think an extra sentence could be useful. And that's notwithstanding my remarks below: they, if recommendations are followed, will require a more substantial lead definitely.

Agreed this is definitely the part that needs the most expansion. Had planned on trying to expand a bit after this. TBallioni (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Background

...is pretty comprehensive; I wonder, could there be a slightly more in-depth treatment of the political context? For instance, HIV's excommunication is mentioned—but why was he excommunicated?

"The Spanish faction"—who are these factions, what created them, and what was the relationship between them? Most readers unfamiliar with the period will likely have a preconception of the church being a monolithic entity, so anything that states otherwise should probably be expanded.

Further to that, you mention schism, and clearly its something the church would fear. But the reader might want it explained: what is a schism (at least link to it!), and why should the church fear it and/or why is it such a powerful bargaining counter for the French? No need for too much detail on this, but perhaps a note referencing the last time it had gone pear-shaped would explain the hierarchy's well-founded fears.

Basically, could we have a slightly expanded section detailing the political context? If necessary, you could make it a sub-section of the background. Either way, at the moment you summarise the thirteen-year period since the previous conclave in one sentence. I make no comment on the French Wars of Religion—the WWI of the day—only meriting a mention!

All this said, I appreciate that the background of any subject should be proportionate to the body; the "Notes2 section is a useful way of commenting on mere mentions without disrupting the flow of the prose or lending undue weight to any extraneous material.

I also wonder if an explanation as to the mechanics of papal elections might be warranted? You jump from the death of Clement VIII to the convening of the of the college of cardinals. It would be useful, I think, to briefly describe how, why, when, where it met, who composed it, and how it came to its judgements. This would also help clarify what you touch upon in the next section; viz, electors controlling votes.

Participants

I wonder if—considering that the main article on the participants is bigger than this entire article, perhaps some of the information could be transposed here? Not a necessity at all though, and I certainly don't insist on it; it's a matter of editorial judgement.

• "Conclave"
  Is it possible to know a little more about the nineteen candidates that weren't "seriously discussed"—who they were, and, more importantly, why they never had a chance? Might also be worth clarifying why the two remaining candidates were so studiously supported/opposed by the French / Spanish.
  You know, if you can, you should really expand on the whole "bookies taking bets" thing—it's an attention grabber for Randy in Boise to find out that they were doing years ago exactly what his pa does every Saturday at the dogs! The human touch, basically. Again, the notes are your friend for this kind of trivial but relevant discussion.
  The rights of monarchs to veto candidates should be explained. The reader will probably assume that elections then, like now, (the usual exceptions notwithstanding, of course) wouldn't be interfered with.
  Ah! The conclave doors were opened while it was still in session?!←please, something that explains why this was such an offence that previous popes had regularly mandated against cardinals being released before the job was done: cf., Viterbo, perhaps?
  You mention two cardinals who didn't arrive on time, and one who did; is it possible to expand on why they could / could not arrive when (presumably) this was one of the most important events of their careers? Was it purely logistics (crappy weather and the Pyrenees), or something else—political interference, for instance?

Election of Leo XI

You handle the factional politics and divisions well. Is it possible to have a more day-by-day account? It lasted over two weeks; do we have a more precise breakdown of how the discussions and/or shouting matches went?

The revelation that the new pope "was related to the French queen" and that her husband had "spent significant money on his candidacy" should probably be mentioned earlier, when you announce the candidates and the national partisanship. In any case, this sentence seems somewhat tacked on to the previous one.

• "Aftermath"
  —there isn't one! You do cover some of the consequences in the last section, but there's probably more to say, in its own. But the fact that Leo is in—what, the top ten?—list of shortest Papal reigns needs mentioning, and, bearing in mind the title of the article explicitly implies there is more than one conclave this year, the May 1605 conclave needs mentioning and linked to.
  "Leo's election was seen as a victory for France"..."Leo's election pleased the French." The first intimates the second and could be condensed?

Tweaked TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Any consequent political implications, perhaps vis-à-vis the French (who as you have said were very happy at their man winning) losing their Pope? You don't mention Leo's successor or his successor's national faction.

Images

Any chance of another one to break up the sections? I suggest conclave section, aligned to the left. Perhaps the apostolic palace?

Citations

Cite 13 is showing pp rather than p.

References

These are all pretty solid, but you'll get an independent source-review at FAC.

Prose, grammar etc: suggestions

Any reason the article uses Canadian English? I'm not personally bothered, it just jumped out somewhat! :)

Because my natural spelling tendencies switch between American English and Canadian English and I used the script to make sure it was standardized :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

An excellent reason ...I just assumed there was an as yet undiscovered Canadian contingent at the conclave  :)  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggest "On 17 September 1595, Clement VIII accepted the decision of Henry IV of France to convert to the Catholic Church, which Henry had previously made to secure the French monarchy. Clement subsequently presided over a ceremony of papal absolution on Henry"—or some such. Break the sentence up.

"Sources from the time of the conclave listed"—"contemporary sources list"?

"This led the Spanish monarchy to have such an intense dislike for him"—"Baronius' criticisms led to the Spanish monarchy to have such an intense dislike for him."

"...would arrive before the end of the conclave to aid their numbers, but they did not arrive"—"...would arrive before the end of the conclave to aid their numbers; but they did not."

" Aldobrandini hoped for the arrival of Cardinal Ginasio, who also did not enter the conclave before it ended"—slightly ambiguous; implies he was there, but not allowed in! (If that was the case, then it needs saying; I assume he also did not arrive in time, in which case the sentence can be tightened.

"Aldobrandini was unable to convince some members of his faction to vote for Baronius because they viewed the latter as too strict, and by 30 March Aldobrandini had resigned himself to look for other candidates."—cut this in half. Suggest "Aldobrandini was unable to convince some members of his faction to vote for Baronius because they viewed the latter as being too strict. By the 30th March, Aldobrandini had resigned himself to look for other candidates." Incidentally, you might want to recast the "too strict"—it makes him sound like an Etonian housemaster!

" seeking Medici's election throughout the conclave, and had managed to secure the support of Montalto for his candidate"—" seeking Medici's election throughout the conclave, and had secured the support of Montalto for his candidate."

"Aldobrandini was eventually convinced of the need to elect Medici, switching his vote to support Medici upon hearing Baronius urge Medici's immediate election"—"Aldobrandini was eventually convinced of the need to elect Medici. Hearing Baronius urge Medici's immediate elections, Aldobrandini witched his vote to support Medici."

"Leo's election pleased the French, because..."—I've already suggested losing this sentence, or at least condensing it; but if it stays and the preceding one goes, the comma here should also go, as it's a continuous sentence.

"Leo's reign, however, was limited to the month of April 1605"—there's surely a better way of phrasing the relatively basic fact of his not lasting out the month!

That's it for now TB. Hope it helps; nothing compared to Iridescent's nitpicking's, I know...hopefully you'll get nitpicked to bits sooner rather than later! All the best, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, been a bit busy on-wiki and IRL, but will get back to these this week. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

Thank you for the invitation, I'll make notes reading, probably best ignore those for the lead, because often that's understood only after reading the whole article. I am not familiar with the topic, but that may be a test if outsiders can understand it.

Lead

• It should eventually grow. I understand that we shouldn't link from the bolded title, but should have some (piped?) link to Papal conclave, - for readers who have no idea what that is, + explain?
• I'd appreciate some chronology, not have Leo die before the key discussion is mentioned.
• General comment: consider linking in the lead and on first occurrence in the body.

Background

• wl Papal absolution?
• be sure when writing "him" that it's clear to whom it refers
• another (found later): "The Spanish faction had previously opposed the pope taking these actions" - not clear to an outsider which actions by which pope, - the excommunication by S. or the acceptance by C. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• "Henry IV also demanded", - "also" referring to what?
  • Switched to likewise. Was saying that Henry IV wanted his cardinals to be in Rome just like Clement did. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• suddenly Clement is dead? - consider to split chronological narration of events from general remarks, or - if combined - connect somehow

Participants

• please link popes, + College of Cardinals, + any other terms you are familiar with but others may not know.
• control number of votes: how?
  • Clarified. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Conclave

• "Sources from the time of the conclave listed", - are they lost, or do they still "list", tense.
  • List would be better, you are correct. Also, thoughts on actually listing them? I've struggled on this question. Pastor provides some list of potential candidates discussed by contemporary sourcing (I'd have to check if it was all 21), so it would be possible to include a list of candidates, but I also don't want to overwhelm the reader. A possible way to deal with this that I just thought of would be as footnotes in the companion list of electors. Your thoughts would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't list many, just the link to the list is fine, but is there a reason why only two were seriously discussed first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• Too many names, at least when approaching midnight. To be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Here we go:

• These many names, of which pope had created how many cardinals: I miss an explanation why it's important, and it makes for repetitive reading. Innocent bystanders don't get in which succession the popes are mentioned, earliest first or what?
  • Its traditional when describing conclaves to discuss the composition of the college in terms of who appointed the electors. Sorry for the Americanism here, but it’s somewhat like how in the states it is customary to note the president who appointed a federal judge. It tells both the relative age of the cardinals and gives an idea as to which deceased pope will have the most influence in picking the new one. I think I ordered them chronologically, but I can check that. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• "secret candidate" - what does it mean, - didn't I just read he had another first choice?
• link Cardinal Avila?
  • No en.wiki article. I can red link and see if it or es has it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This one? Cardinal Avila - find good name in English please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• does a veto automatically initiate exclusion?
• "Baronius came within nine votes of election" (wasn't he excluded? what did I miss?) - not sure I understand that, but I may be the only one.

Election of Leo XI

• suddenly Medici is back, of whom we didn't hear for a while
• "After his election supporters of the French crown were celebrating in Rome's streets upon his election" - some duplication, no?

General: I'd like a bit more introduction to the politics of the time, and some images of key people, perhaps in a gallery. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)