Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of extant papal tombs/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:12, 2 June 2009.

List of extant papal tombs

 * Nominator(s): Savidan 05:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it exemplifies the featured list criteria. It uses only free images, and despite that restriction still manages to illustrate the vast majority of the extant papal tombs. I believe that the list structure makes it easy to assess and understand trends in papal funeral sculpture. Although for the purpose of completeness I included quite a bit of information about non-extant papal tombs and tombs where there are multiple claimants (which is common with early Christian relics), this information is hidden by default so as not to interrupt the visual flow of the list. For interested readers, it is only a click away. As for inclusion criteria, I stuck with the List of popes, a former featured list (which was delisted for unrelated reasons). I'd be happy to field any comments or suggestions for improvement. Savidan 05:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC) I has split the content about non-extant papal tombs into other articles in response to the second and third comments here. Savidan 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - FLs no longer start with "This is a list of ..." - see recently promoted lists for suggestions— Chris!  c t 05:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have reworded the opening sentence. Savidan 05:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Better, but not as good as it could be. Do away with the self-references completely—see List of members of the Gregorian mission as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments and questions
 * 1. Why hide the non-extant or unknown tombs? I ask because I think it actually makes the navigation more difficult and confusing. If it's just so people can identify the unknown tombs, it may be better to simply color code those in some way, or make a note, or something other than collapsing them, which breaks up the flow of the tables.
 * 2. For Gregory XVI (1830's), Luigi Amici is both the sculptor and the slightly cryptic note.
 * 3. There are a ton of redlinks, mostly sculptors. Not a cause for opposition to me, but you may want to leave a note with associated wikiprojects to try to get some of those articles created.
 * 4. There are several broad statements in the lead that could use some in-line cites. There are currently no in-line cites in the lead.
 * 5. Regarding the number of in-line cites in the table... holy everloving crap. I'm impressed.
 * 6. It really bothers me that there is so much whitespace after the lead. I know it's similar to the List of popes, but it might make sense to combine the sub-sections in each broader section so the ToC isn't so long, and to drop one the images (I'd suggest if you do this keeping the procession - it's much more visually appealing), e.g. collapse the 1st-5th centuries into a single table.
 * That's all for now. Geraldk (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Geraldk. I appreciate your specificity and candidness. I will address your comments in order:
 * 1. I hid the non-extant and unknown tombs because there is generally much less (and much less reliable) information about them, and there is certainly no picture. In particular, this information is somewhat repetitive. For example, dozens of tombs were simply destroyed during the demolition of Old Saint Peter's; maybe another dozen were destroyed in one of two fires in John Lateran (for most it is not even known which fire did them in). If you want to see what the article looked like before I collapsed them, uncollapse several of them and scroll up and down. I don't think it's particularly appealing, but maybe that's just a subjective decision. I think the primary usefulness of this article is art historical, and in that sense, the "flow" between the extant tombs is more important. I'd be open to discussing this issue further with you and am curious what other reviewers think.
 * 2. Typo on my part. Thanks for catching it.
 * 3. I have notified the Visual Art, Architecture, and (defunct) Sculpture WikiProjects. Just for the record, my view is that redlinks along the lines of Tomb of Pope John II and Tomb of Pope Martin I would be inappropriate, but redlinks to articles which are not the primary subject of the list are value enhancing (although I anticipate that others may disagree). David Gerard has a lot of interesting blog entries on the subject in support of redlinks.
 * 4. My philosophy on the lead was that it should summarize facts that are cited in the article, which in my view does not necessitate re-citation. I would be open to adding some if you could be more specific in your justification.
 * 5. Thanks.
 * 6. I will drop the first image as you suggest. I have created a specialized TOC. If it is to your liking I suggest it is superior to combining the article categories, which may raise issues about trapping the reader in very long tables. E.g. readers wanting to jump to the 4th century would have to wade through three preceding centuries of table. Savidan 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - much improved. Splitting off the non-extant tombs was a good idea. Now, when are you going to get that list of popes up to FL? Geraldk (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - looks good — Chris!  c t 02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.