Talk:Pope Sisinnius/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 00:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hi, Unlimitedlead! I'm Pbritti, a regular contributor to Catholic/Christian topics with a little experience in the GA sphere (both reviewing and nominating). I've noticed your hard work on English Christian and monarchy articles and have been nothing but impressed! As such, when I saw you had nominated this article and I saw the sources are mostly texts I have either on my bookshelf or can access, I figured I was a good fit as a reviewer. This process may take me a couple days but I'm keen to give you some quick feedback. If you have any questions or any concerns, you're more than welcome to ping me here or comment on my talk page! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, both for the kind words and the initiative to review! I look forward to receiving feedback on this article. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

First look: I decided that a short article should be given quick once-over first to find any easily resolved issues. Overall, the material here almost precisely matches the sources in terms of content, though avoids crossing the threshold between paraphrasing and plagiarizing. There are only a few things I think bear mention:

• I decided to drop Category:Asian popes as (unlike Category:Popes) it is not a non-diffusing category.
• The phrasing in the lead comes across as too casual with the phrase "Besides the fact". I'm nitpicking here. Consider this an optional change.
• The sentence on the two recorded actions during his reign (the consecration and the lime prep) might do better as two separate sentences. I can suggest a rewrite if you'd prefer, but again this is only a diction change rather than a real impediment to fulfilling the GA standards.

Overall, great work. Grammar and other langiage-related requirements are fulfilled. MOS here appears to match the standards for a GA. I'll be reviewing the references and citations next. Apologies if this isn't done until tomorrow; I received positive professional news that is bad for my availability on Wikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti Never apologize for receiving such wonderful news! Take all the time you need; the comments have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, Unlimitedlead. I lied, I'm going to move on to knocking out some of the other criteria first:

• Criteria 3–Coverage: Y Absolutely appropriately broad coverage. I would argue it fulfills the elevated FA standard of "comprehensive". Comparing the article against its sources and two other good sources on popes (1902 Catholic Encyclopedia article and Britannica online article), the article provides all major points and reflects the limited primary sources involved while avoiding speculation.
• Criteria 4–Neutrality: Y As we all know, Pope Sisinnius is among the most controversial figures in Latin Christianity. I think this article just barely manages to avoid the partisan pitfalls. In all seriousness, the article's reliance on some of the best reliable sources on this topic is a good indicator. The phrasing of his praises is done in a neutral, non-puffery fashion. All other material is similarly NPOV.
• Criteria 5–Stability: Y Uncharacteristically stable article. Only major revision is that which preceded this nomination.
• Criteria 6–Illustration: Y I'm going to give a soft maybe here. Portraits of Sisinnius of any true accuracy almost certainly do not exist. However, several depictions do exist and are on the Commons: 1842 The Lives and Times of the Popes (removed March 2021 for its "fanciful" nature; less compressed but uncropped version), rendition of mosaic from Saint Paul's Outside the Walls, 1879 Ritratti e biografie dei romani pontefici (uncropped), and this very funny one. Leaving out a portrait is fine, and any portrait included would likely require a caption that explained the anachronism. If we don't use a portrait, maybe a depiction of Old St. Peter's being demolished could color his tomb's demolition? I do not consider this an absolute imperative and leaving the article unillustrated is perfectly suitable.

Again, excellent work. Expect the references fully reviewed tonight or tomorrow (US time). ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, @Unlimitedlead: lets hit the first two criteria last:

• Criteria 1–Writing: Y My preliminary review of the article was largely meant to pick up on this kind of thing. Everything in the article is plainly adequate according to the more descriptive standards available in some of the suggested GA criteria guides. I only have a couple recommendations. Perhaps consider retitling the main body section to something like "Life" or "Life and legacy". Additionally, consider breaking the first paragraph of that section into two paragraphs, with the second starting with the sentence beginning By birth, Sisinnius. However, these are very minor recommendations and Criteria 1 is fulfilled in full as it stands right now.
• Criteria 2–Verifiability: Y All material written in article appears to be reliably sourced and accurately reflective of the referenced sources. A notable case study in the quality of this is article is the reference of Sisinnius consecrating a bishop: was this a bishop of Corsica (as in McBrien) or a bishop for Corsica (as in Kelly & Walsh and this article). The more accurate phrasing is "for", as there wasn't a singular diocese encompassing Corsica during Sisinnius's time. I mention this case as a demonstration of the verifiability and contextual understanding deployed in this article. In the more technical sense, the citations align with the sources and page numbers given (though frankly almost every source could be used to reference any fact in this article). Excellent work.

Alright, that's my review according to the criteria. Feel free to respond to any of the suggestions and recommendations I've made with "No thanks, I'm good"; I am willing to pass this article as is! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti I have renamed the section "Life and papacy"; I do not see how I can logically split the paragraphs as is, so I have decided to leave it be. Thank you for taking the time to review this article! Your diligent work is much appreciated. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead: My pleasure. Any thoughts on my comments regarding illustration? Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that any addition of an image would warrant a lengthy explanation and justification for using an image that is neither time-period-appropriate nor accurate. I am sure it would just get removed by someone for those reasons anyhow, and personally, I find that the article is just fine without one. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Passed Congrats! Review complete, will implement the necessary edits to register the promotion! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)