Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Holy See/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 09:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 29, 2012, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Symbol_oppose_vote.svg Not well written. Redundant usage, confusing wording and main subject is lost. Major focus issues in prose.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Symbol_oppose_vote.svg There appears to be an issue with the title of the page itself, referring to this as Papal Orders of Chivalry. It appears no RS can support this naming. These are refered to simply as papal decorations, papal orders etc, but the title of this page is innacurate and could be OR in itself. Large, major chunks of the article are unreferenced.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Symbol_oppose_vote.svg The article lacks breadth of coverage in general. There is a wealth of information and this seems to be almost narrow in direction and yet it loses focus completely in regards to explaining what a papal order is or is for. The article says who gives it, when he gives it and who gets it, but just not why the person recieves it and what it is for. This is in the sources but disregarded in this article.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Symbol_oppose_vote.svg Not neutral. Emphasis on contemporary Vatican perception.
 * 5. Article stability?: Symbol_support_vote.svg No edits since July 20, 2012.
 * 6. Images?: Symbol_oppose_vote.svg fail. The images are not being maintained or looked at close enough. I fixed the redlink at commons for the deleted page that was linked as the first page for background information on the SVG file on the Feature image but File:Gregoriusorden.jpg needs a summary, source and author information. Too much needed to pass on images.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)