Talk:Papal conclave, 1623

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Papal conclave, 1623/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 01:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I will go ahead and review this article, since all the Papal conclave articles are short and easy to review and no one else seems to be taking them at the moment. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This time around I do not have any criticisms that need to be addressed before I pass the article. As far as I am concerned, the article seems to meet all of the GA criteria as it is.

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 (references):
    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, 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:

Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg

Comments

  1. The article is well-written, at least from my perspective.
  2. The article is well-cited, like the other papal conclave articles I have reviewed previously.
  3. The article covers the subject adequately. It is short, like all the others, but the subject matter does not require a lengthy article to convey the information.
  4. The article is neutral and does not unfairly favor one side over the others.
  5. The article is very stable and the edit history reveals no signs of vandalism or edit-warring.
  6. The portrait of Urban VIII fulfills the media requirement, I think. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)