Talk:1691 papal conclave

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Papal conclave, 1691/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 05:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I will attempt to review this article. I have nominated the article Inanna in this category, so I am trying to do my part to eliminate the backlog. I have done this a few times and I think I have a good idea of how it works, but I am still fairly inexperienced at this, so make sure to let me know if I make any mistakes. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on my understanding, this article does not meet any of the criteria for immediate failure, which means I will continue to review it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Some suggestions for possible improvements to writing quality:

1. "...after cardinals started to become ill during the heat..." I would recommend changing this to say "from the heat" instead of "during the heat." While concurrence does not necessarily imply causation, in this case it seems fairly clear that you are trying to say they were suffering from heat-related illnesses. If I have misunderstood and this was not the case, then I would recommend just removing the reference to "the heat" entirely, or perhaps rephrasing it to show that the heat and the illness were concurrent but unrelated.
2. "He was unacceptable to Leopold I, the Holy Roman Emperor, because he was a Venetian." I would recommend changing this to say, "Leopold I, the Holy Roman Emperor, considered him unacceptable because he was a Venetian." It is best to use the active voice rather than the passive one whenever possible.
3. "Additionally, it was feared by some of the more worldly cardinals that..." Change this to say "Additionally, some of the more worldly cardinals feared that..." Once again, it is better to use the active voice.
4. If there are any other places where you could easily change the passive voice to active, this would be highly recommended. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I checked out the changes you made and they all look good. Now the review will continue. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

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 was fairly well-written before, but I think the recent changes have brought vast improvements.
2. The article contains plenty of citations.
3. The article is quite short, but, as far as I can tell, it provides a full overview of the subject.
4. I could not find any neutrality problems.
5. I looked back through the edit history of the article; it seems completely stable. I could find no recent outbreaks of edit-warring or vandalism.
6. There are not a lot of images that could easily be incorporated into this article, but the portrait of Antonio Pignatelli is an excellent inclusion, I think.

Overall, I think this article is very well-written and informative. Based on my understand of the GA criteria, I believe this article passes all of them. If you think I have made a mistake and this article has not really passed, please contact me and inform me or my mistake. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)