Wikipedia:Peer review/Pope Pius XII/archive1

Pope Pius XII[edit]

This article has undergone a massive improvement recently. We need to be very careful to walk the line between writing an apologist article and a judgemental one. This article is well-referenced, but some IP editors (both pro- and anti-) have alleged incomplete. I agree that an omission can be just as bad as an error. An incredible amount of caution needs to be exercized because of the anti- and pro- Pius rumors on the internets, which are bound to creep in. There are several pro-, anti-, and neutral biographies of Pius which could be utilized to have more than enough notable and verifiable information on the debate. As a Catholic, I would like to get a neutral eye to run over this article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pope Pius XII is generally regarded as the last true Pope by most sedevacantists. There is also an ongoing movement to canonize him." -In the introduction. Does the word generally add anything to the first sentence? Does the movement to canonize him have anything to do with the sedevacantits? if so, this should be explict. If not it should not be in the same paragraph. Also changing the sentence to "Most sedevacantists regard Pope Pius XII as the last true Pope" is a better way to present it. Jon513 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, I like your wording better too. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation fr. should be explained. Not everyone knows the fr stands for father. Jon513 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be expanded in all instances. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the sentence "On the night of the Beer Hall Putsch, Franz Matt, the only member of the German cabinet not present at the Bürgerbräu Keller, was having dinner with Pacelli and Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber." lacks context. Jon513 17:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Pacelli was created a cardinal on 16 December 1929 by Pope Pius XI. " is created the right word here? Jon513 17:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think appointed is correct. Thanks for catching that. savidan^{(talk) (e@)}