Talk:Canonization of Thomas Aquinas/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this up. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * Seems a bit sparse - we could probably mention that his bones were contested for a while after his death, that it took two inquiries to get him formally canonized, and that over a 100 folks testified to miracles ascribed to him.
 * Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * Seems a bit sparse - we could probably mention that his bones were contested for a while after his death, that it took two inquiries to get him formally canonized, and that over a 100 folks testified to miracles ascribed to him.
 * Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit sparse - we could probably mention that his bones were contested for a while after his death, that it took two inquiries to get him formally canonized, and that over a 100 folks testified to miracles ascribed to him.
 * Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Inquiries:
 * Do we have links for "Robert of San Valention", "Guillelmo de Tocco", "Robert the Lector", Umberto the archbishop, Angelo the bishop, "Pandulpho de Sabbello", "Peter Ferri"; Andrew the archbishop, "John of Naples"?
 * Ah, I recall searching for them when I was writing the article but it appears not. p.s. I double checked and the source does write "Robert of San Valention", but it just might be a typo (Valentino?). As with the concern about the Queen of Naples below, I wouldn't know better... Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "witnesses reported encountering visions" odd phrasing - perhaps "witnesses reported receiving visions"?
 * Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Canonization:
 * "Robert, King of Naples, and his wife" link for him and let's actually name her, please.
 * He is already linked in "Inquiries" so I thought that'd be overlinking. Genuinely did not mean to not name her but I'm not an expert on the period and the source itself doesn't name her. A quick search suggests that it would most probably have been Sancia of Majorca but would it be appropriate to actually name her when the source doesn't? (I've gone ahead and added the link anyway.) Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * And name her on the second mention also.
 * Is there some reason we need to list the hymns sung ... and does the sermon topic of the second ceremony have any importance? Otherwise, these are just ... trivia.
 * I'm not sure, it seemed important enough for the source to mention, at least. It certainly helps to "picture" the day itself, if one were looking to recreate it, I think. I would liken it to knowing what songs were sung at the inauguration of a POTUS--do you disagree? But I will remove it with a heavy heart if I really must... Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "and placing just behind" ... awkward - suggest "and placed just behind"
 * Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "In 1348, Onorato I Caetani obtained the remains of Thomas Aquinas from the Cistercians" ... Who is Caetani and this is the first we've been confirmed that the Cistercians still had Thomas - last we heard his head was in Priverno, and his body had been boiled but nothing on where the rest of the body minus the head (and hand!) had gone.
 * He was the count of Fondi, but I thought the wikilink would reveal more than I could fit in. Have added the descriptor. The Cistercians were the ones who boiled the remains and sent the head artefact to the Dominicans. The hand was long gone (the Cistercians passed it to one of Thomas' sisters). Shouldn't that imply that they (the Cistercians) held on to the "remaining" remains, if nothing to the contrary is mentioned? I'm not sure how to phrase it non-awkwardly but I thought the implication was clear, without needing to clarify that the remains that were acquired by Caetani and subsequently returned to the Dominicans were headless and handless. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift review, let me know what you think Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * These work fine, passing now. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)