Talk:Pope John XIV

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Isn't the picture of pope XIV the same as XV? just another angle???? ---- Llamafrog

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 13:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed any popes so far, time to change that :) Expect comments over the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Will close as failed; the main issue is broadness (time as bishop of Pavia needs to be discussed). Happy to look again if rhis is fixed and renominated in the future. —Kusma (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Content and prose review

We don't seem to know very much, but that makes it easy to check everything.

Indeed! Thanks @Kusma: for the very thorough and comprehensive review; and especially for the new sources you have introduced. I will take care of your comments when I am less busy (probably tomorrow), but before then, I would like to ask about the links you have pointed me to. Based on your experience, are reliable and HQ? I have never used them before so I am a little hesitant. And one source appears to be from the 19th century, which is far too old for my liking. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Italian one from 1894 (probably there are more modern works about the bishops of Pavia; my Italian is useless and I didn't search much). The others look OK to me, not worse than the "Deaths of the Popes" in any case (probably the weakest of the sources you use). The Regesta Imperii one below is a source listing and summarising the known primary source material and telling you where to find it, but only offering limited amounts of critical commentary. It is a massive editorial project run by a large number of historians; I usually trust them when I write about the Middle Ages (not often, my best work is Rüdiger Huzmann). —Kusma (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma Apologies for the sudden notice, but I will be out of the country until the end of July. I thought I would be able to wrap up this GA review before then, but due to preparations I must undertake as well as personal circumstances, would you mind placing the review on hold until I return and am able to devote my full attention to addressing your comments? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead, that's a long hold, but we can do that. Hope you enjoy your time abroad! —Kusma (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It also gives me time to do my promised spot checks :) —Kusma (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead, if you are back, could we wrap this up soon? —Kusma (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC

@Kusma: I deeply apologize for the hiatus I have taken. To be completely transparent, I have been through a lot personally and am not in a wonderful place mentally. My motivation to edit on Wikipedia has somewhat wavered, but I plan to somewhat return to my regular pace over the next few weeks. I should be able to start taking a look at this review again sometime this week or next week. Thank you for your continued patience and support. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead, please do make sure to prioritise your wellbeing. If you want to put this review to the side for longer to focus on other projects, we can also just close it and I can pick it up again later when you re-nominate. Of course, even better would be to do it soon; given that the expected hold time is "about seven days" I would really like to avoid exceeding seventy-seven days :) —Kusma (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma: Thank you for your concern. I promise I am alright, and I will be able to take on this review soon, tomorrow at the earliest and next week at the very latest. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead, I've been busy with other things (and still am a bit), but I think we should really get this over the line. I will close the nom in the first week of October at the latest. —Kusma (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• The pre-papacy life could be given a little bit more space, both in the lead and in the body.

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Also, you could sort it a little bit more chronologically: He is born in Pavia, becomes bishop of Pavia in 966, then archchancellor of Italy from 980 [1]. Then the old pope dies, and Otto II starts finding a successor.
• According to this (see p. 58) he was archchancellor of Italy 980–983, so "former archchancellor" is a bit misleading.
• " adopt a new papal name — John — in order to avoid association with Saint Peter." a pope is by definition associated with Saint Peter; you probably mean something else here.
• you could say who succeeded him as Bishop of Pavia
• pallium usually takes the definite article.
• Otto III did not reign from his birth in 980.
• "Upon the return of Antipope Boniface VII from Constantinople in April 984 and his installation as pope" you could give a little context about him; especially that he had indeed been (anti-)pope before. (I don't like the word "antipope" much; this particular one is a bit of a bastard, but usually the legitimacy of antipopes is similar to that of popes, and calling some "antipopes" just follows Catholic propaganda).
• "Information regarding the charges laid against John do not survive, nor do any details surrounding his trial." I think this is overplaying it; we do not seem to have information that there were any charges or a trial.
• Reardon seems to have more gruesome information about his torture; do you not believe that?
• Hans-Henning Kortüm: why is he so important to mention here? and why do you cite him to someone else?
• "Because Antipope Boniface VII was only considered an antipope in the 20th-century, Pope John XV was considered to be the successor of Antipope Boniface VII and not John XIV." This is confusing. Boniface VII was considered to be the legitimate pope and successor of John XIV, so John XV was only considered the successor of John XIV from the 20th century, when Boniface VII was considered to have been an antipope (i.e. illegitimate) during his second reign? This says the change happened in 1904.
• See here (p. 192–194) for some more information about his papacy and a lot of potential sources.
• And here is his bull.
• The Italian article cites a very nice source (assuming the online version is the same as the paper version) with a massive bibliography. There should be enough there to fill the Pavia era questions and if you go through the sources there, you'll get to "comprehensive" for FA.

General comments and GA criteria

Nice work overall.

• No images. All extant ones seem to be later fictions. Can't think of much other than to use Otto II or so.
• Sources are mostly (high quality) tertiary sources. Slightly more secondary sources / fewer encyclopaedias would be nicer, but essentially all agree with each other here on most things.
• Broadness: Some information about his life as bishop of Pavia is known and should be added.
• Focus: We know so little about his papacy that it is fine to tell us as much as possible
• Neutral except possibly about the antipope/successor question, where the infobox just gives the post-1904 Catholic official position.
• References nicely formatted.
• Will do close paraphrasing spotchecks tomorrow.
• Spotchecks passed: looked at 1c, 3, 5a, 6, 7, all fine both for source-to-text integrity and absence of close paraphrasing (couldn't check page number on the last one though).

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.