Talk:Conrad I of Salzburg

Conrad I of Salzburg has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 10, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Austria Low‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move?[edit]

Move to Conrad of Abenberg? I created a link at Pellegrino I of Aquileia to this title solely because I wanted an easy link and I had to distinguish him from Conrad II. I leave it up to the article's creator if it should be moved. Srnec (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "Conrad I of Salzburg". The subject's family name was "von Abenberg", but the sources mostly refer to Conrad I of Salzburg or Konrad I von Salzburg. Conrad ruled Salzburg as a prince-bishop, so the title is consistent with that of other heads of state. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conrad I of Salzburg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 13:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first Good Article review, and I look forward to working with Dr. Blofeld throughout this process. I will begin conducting this review within the next day. -- Caponer (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2014 (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:

Dr. Blofeld, first and foremost, I'd like to commend you for this well-written and comprehensive article, and I can see that you have undertaken a tremendous amount of research to accomplish this feat. As I stated before, this is my first Good Article review, so I'm still learning the ropes and I appreciate your patience and bearing with me throughout this process. I made a few minor tweaks and edits to the article, so let me know if you disagree with any of these. I had a few questions/comments below, and once those have been addressed, I think that this article is definitely ready to receive Good Article status! Great job on this article, and I look forward to your responses. -- Caponer (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, apologies for the delay.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should reference some form of the following: "Pope Paschal II consecrated Conrad as bishop on 21 October 1106." Also, was Conrad consecrated a bishop or an archbishop in 1106? Also, the term "archdiocese" should be used throughout the article to refer to Conrad's church lands, rather than "diocese."

Lead doesn't really need sourcing, unless it's a really strong statement. Changed to archdiocese.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, it reads "During the absence of Lothair of Supplinburg in Italy, Conrad was crowned archbishop of Salzburg by Innocent II on 4 June 1133." but in the prose, it reads "Lothair visited Italy in 1132-33, and was crowned emperor by Innocent II on 4 June 1133." Should the lead instead read "During the absence of Lothair of Supplinburg in Italy, Conrad was ordained as the archbishop of Salzburg."?

Yes, good suggestion, changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Conrad was consecrated as an archbishop in 1106, why was he re-ordained as the archbishop of Salzburg in 1133 during Lothair's absence?

Good point, @Aymatth2: might answer that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was consecrated bishop in 1106, then made archbishop in 1133. Same territory, different rank. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Church reform and administration," could you elaborate about what the "chapter" is in "built the cathedral chapter."

No elaboration needed really but I linked chapter house.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The archbishop supported the Benedictines." Did Conrad provide special support to the Benedictines different form his support of the other orders residing at the monasteries he constructed?

Sources don't say, just that he supported them I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A succession box should probably be added to the bottom of the article, linking to the preceding and succeeding Archbishops of Salzburg.

Should the article be divided into two sections named something like "Early life and professions" and "Archbishop of Salzburg" with the latter divided into the subcategories "Military and political endeavors" and "Reform and administration"? I'm not married to this wording of these sections, but the content seems to divide neatly among these lines. I'm definitely open to your thoughts, and the way the article is written in its current state will do.

Yes, I like your suggestion, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, it looks like we have a Good Article here! Thank you for bearing with me, as this was my first GA review. As always, it's been a pleasure working with you. You've crafted yet another extraordinary article! -- Caponer (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift response Caponer, let me know if you want me to review anything...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]