Talk:Ecclesiastical prison

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ecclesiastical prison/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 21:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 21:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "prisoners might be held" → "prisoners might have been held"

Changed.— Moriwen (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Monastic prisons

• "famously" → "notably"
• Explain what the case of Nun of Watton was
• "might be" → "could have been"
• What does "detrusio in monasterium" translate to?
• "punishment, though, monasteries" → "punishment, however, monasteries"
• "could be for periods" → "could have been for periods"
• "could last" → "could have lasted"
• "Vade in pace" should be lowercase
• Remove the comma after "Salamanca"

Made nearly all these changes. "Might be" and similar were intended to convey "it happened sometimes", not "we are unsure if it happened", so I've changed them to slightly different phrasings accordingly. My sources all seem to capitalize Vade in pace. — Moriwen (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Diocesan prisons

• Why are the prisons of Notre Dame and the Archbishop of Canterbury notable?
• Remove "famous"
• Move "from 1367 to 1870" to after "served as a papal prison"
• Use endashes for the year spans listed: (1539–1540) (periods 1592–1600) (1773–1775) (c. 1789–1795)
• Include an image of Pope Paul III (or one of the other people imprisoned) with an appropriate caption about his imprisonment to better illustrate the article.
• Why were prisoners sent to San Michele a Ripa by their parents or guardians?

Changes made. — Moriwen (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Inquisitorial prisons

• "process could take years" → "process could have taken years"
• "could subject" → "could have subjected"
• Replace the semicolon after "no prisons of their own to use" with a period
• What does "strictissimus carceris" translate to?
• "On the other hand" → "Conversely" MOS:EUPHEMISM
• "might be allowed" → "might have been allowed"
• "might be freed" → "might have been freed"
• "could sometimes escape" → "could sometimes have escaped"
• Specify "King Philip IV of France"
• Replace the semicolon after "southern France" with a period
• "These reforms, once implemented, left inquisitorial prisons among the best-run in Europe" this is subjective. Specify that this was the opinion of Edward M. Peters.

Edits made. (I may have a bit of a problem with semicolons...)— Moriwen (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Modern era

• Remove (in 1874) from the parenthesis and move it to after "monument historique"
• put "monument historique" into the {{lang|fr|monument historique}} template
• "During the course of the early modern era" → "During the early modern era"
• "between the Vatican and Francisco Franco" change it to "between Pope Pius XII and Francisco Franco" or to "between the Vatican and Spain (linked to Francoist Spain)"
• Add "Law" to the portal template under the See also header

Edits made. (Put "in 1874" between commas instead of relocating it, so the sentence doesn't imply that the entire renovation happened in 1874.)— Moriwen (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Overall

• Neutral
• Focused and broad
• No war edits

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Moriwen: I've left some comments for the review. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 21:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! This is all helpful; I'll get on making some edits. — Moriwen (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Moriwen: Status? PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 03:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Life hit hard. Giving it another go, lol.— Moriwen (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, revisions made! Thank you for your patience.— Moriwen (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Moriwen: Everything looks good. I'll go ahead and pass this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 05:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Status query

PizzaKing13, Moriwen, where does this review stand? What's left to be done? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that medieval monks could be punished by being walled up alive in a special ecclesiastical prison called the Vade in Pace? Source: Mabillon, Jean (1724). Translated by Sellin, Thorsten. "Reflections on the prisons of the monastic orders". Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology. 17 (4): 585. "In the course of time, a frightful kind of prison, where daylight never entered, was invented, and since it was designed for those who should finish their lives in it, it received the name Vade in pace. It appears that the first person to invent this horrible form of torture was Matthew, Prior of Saint Martin des Champs, according to the story of Peter the Venerable, who informs us that this superior, a good man otherwise, but extremely severe against those who committed some error, caused the construction of a subterranean cave in the form of a grave where he placed, for the rest of his days, a miserable wretch who seemed incorrigible to him. [...] other superiors, less charitable than zealous, did not fail to use it with respect to guilty monks, and this harshness, inhuman as it appears, went so far and became so common that it caused Etienne, Archbishop of Toulouse, to lodge a complaint, through his grand vicar, with King John. [...] The king was horrified by this inhumanity. Touched by compassion for these wretches, he ordered priors and superiors to visit them twice a month and to give, in addition, their permission to two monks of their choice to visit them twice a month [...] This we learn from the Registers of the Parliament of Languedoc in the year 1350."
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Moriwen (talk). Self-nominated at 15:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ecclesiastical prison; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• GA status and date confirmed, hook is interesting and referenced, quote provided here too. QPQ does not appear to be needed based on the cursory glance at nominator's talk page, which sports no other DYK credit and a welcome message on top, with no signs of archiving. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)