Talk:Cardinal protector of England/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 19:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Prose[edit]
The prose is excellent, here are few minor quibbles:
- Lead: Although earlier cardinals had filled similar roles, "the existence of national protectorships was first openly and regularly recognized only" by Pope Julius II.. This seems like an unremarkable statement that doesn't need to be quoted. The way it is written, it seems odd that the quoted portion ends right before the end of the sentence.
- Lead: according to Wilkie. This should specify who Wilkie is.
- Prose: refusal of the pope to create John Morton, the archbishop of Canterbury, a cardinal. Is it common usage to talk about "creating someone a cardinal"? To my ears, "appoint" or "make" sounds more natural.
- Prose: della Rovere's selection was likely arranged. Should della be capitalized here?
- Prose: single, bumbling amateur. I think this means that Fisher was the only amateur diplomat, but the way it is written is a little confusing.
- Aldiosi: The spelling of Aldiosi/Adiosi's name should be made consistent.
Broadness of coverage[edit]
This is very good in general, but you might consider adding a "background" section at the beginning of the article to explain what the situation was vis a vis England and the Catholic Church at the time, what there was before there were cardinal protectors, and expound on exactly what cardinal protectors were supposed to do. A lot of this contextual information is in the lead already, but in general things in the lead should be mentioned in the body also. If you move some of the material in the lead to a new background section, you will have more room to briefly summarize the "History" and "Attempts at reconciliation" sections in the lead, since currently they are missing.
References[edit]
I agree with MathewTownsend from the talk page that it would be better if the referencing was more diverse, but of course Wikipedia is limited by what sources are available and there is nothing in the GA criteria prohibiting reliance on a single source. Other than that, you do an exemplary job of citing everything that needs to be cited,
- Can you correct the formatting for footnote #6? It should ideally be that same as for the other sources cited.
- For footnote #61, could you please specify what book was reviewed?
- The bibliographical information for footnote #66 is incomplete.
Stability/Neutrality[edit]
I don't see any problems here. You don't hesitate to use vibrant language, i.e. "short-circuited", but it never seems like you are pushing a particular point of view.
Images[edit]
Lots of images, dynamically presented. Excellent job.
Overall[edit]
This is a fun and intriguing article, very well researched and written. The comments above are suggestions for further improvement, but I am happy to pass this as a GA. Keep up the good work! --Cerebellum (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)