Talk:1669–1670 papal conclave/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting this review now. The article doesn't look bad. Most of my concerns are with a lack of detail.

Background Conclave Election of Clement X
 * "Clement IX had primarily named Italian cardinals..." This doesn't sound unusual. If all the popes from Adrian VI to John Paul I were Italians, it's fairly easy to infer that throughout that period of time a plurality or majority of cardinals were Italians. But this article makes it seem like Clement IX appointed more Italians to the college than most other popes from the Renaissance to the 21st century. True or no? Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a bit more on this: he promoted fellow Tuscans primarily (7/12 Tuscan, 10/12 Italian). To answer your broader question, it really depended on the pope and what their goals were. The creation of cardinals was (and still is in many ways) the most significant political and diplomatic action a pope can do. The notable thing here was that he didn't create non-Italian cardinals, with two exceptions for diplomatic reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit more information on the status quo between the various Catholic monarchies at the time would be nice. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dealt a bit more with Clement IX's diplomatic dealings, which explains the cardinal situation above. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If the cardinals delayed starting the conclave in order to wait for the French cardinals, shouldn't that sentence go at the start of the section? Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be enough information on how the cardinals came to elect Altieri. In fact, unless I missed it, he wasn't mentioned in the article since the lead. There needs to be more here. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I just double checked the sourcing in both Baumgartner and Pastor: he isn't mentioned in either of them until the moment of his election. My assumption here is that because he was essentially elected as a compromise candidate, and by the timeline given appears to have been decided upon only a few hours before his election (this is certainly the implication of the sourcing, but not outright stated). I have expanded a bit more based on Pastor, but from all the sourcing the most notable thing he did in the entire conclave was put up a fight about being elected. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the meaning of the word "scrutiny" as used in this section? Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Its wikilinked in the article. The equivalent to "ballot" in the sense of "round of voting". Its the technical election term for a conclave. That should be enough to define it. The other option is defining it via an appositive phrase, which on balance I think would be worse given the loss of concision. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Clement X was, at age 79, the oldest pope ever elected. This should definitely be included. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
 * , see my additions to the article and comments. I hope this addressed the concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll pass it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks. It looks like you updated the WikiProject rankings, but didn't put the actual GA template on the talk page. Only mentioning because it will stay at WP:GAN until you do :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the reminder. I just took care of it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)