Talk:Pope Theodore II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 13:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A couple of minor grammar things:

"Flodoard, a tenth-century French chronicler, only attributed Theodore a twelve-day reign" – I don't think you can use "attribute" in this way. I think you want something like "only credited Theodore with a twelve-day reign", or even "wrote that Theodore's reign lasted just twelve days".
- Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 09:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the abbreviations? I realise they mean Sanctus Peter and Theodore, but it isn't immediately obvious.
- Added a footnote. Harrias ^talk 09:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One presentational thing:

You include three enormous navboxes, two of which don't include Theodore as a link. This seems to contravene WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.
- Hadn't really noticed these, I inherited them from the original state of the article. I've only left the list of popes. Harrias ^talk 09:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, a couple of sourcing things:

Commenting on Wendy Reardon's book, you say "though no evidence is offered to support the theory". I think this is original research, as it is your comment on her statement rather than being backed up in any other literature. Unless there's any sourcing on commentary on Reardon's book (a review in a journal, perhaps?), I think you would have to omit that.
- Removed. Harrias ^talk 09:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not sure about the Dollison book as a reliable source, though I can't access it to check what you're relying on it for.
- On what basis are you unsure about the reliability of the Dollison book? It offers a seemingly fairer and more balanced opinion that Reardon, who basically seems to have written a book trying to find mysterious murders for every Pope. Harrias ^talk 06:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I realise there's a paucity of sources for this kind of thing. Academic historical sources would be better than these popular books; if there's nothing else available and no particular reason to question them, I don't think it's a major problem. Relentlessly (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I get what you mean. I don't have much access to journals, and given his short reign, there is little written about him; I've cobbled together what I can, from where I can. The sources certainly aren't strong enough for this to become a Featured article any time soon! Harrias ^talk 09:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought – his reign was, I think, the third shortest of any Pope. Worth mentioning, perhaps? Relentlessly (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I wanted to put something in about this, but the ambiguity in the length of reign of a few popes has made it difficult. Sometimes he is listed as the second shortest, sometimes the third, sometimes the fourth and sometimes the fifth! Hence I erred away from putting it in at all! Harrias ^talk 09:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]