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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 [1].

List of extant papal tombs[edit]

Nominator(s): Savidan 05:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

  • Comment - FLs no longer start with "This is a list of ..." - see recently promoted lists for suggestions—Chris! ct 05:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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. [2]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Oppose
  • The first sentence still needs to improve. Do away with the self-references completely—see List of members of the Gregorian mission as an example.
  • "fourteenth century fires"-->fourteenth-century fires
  • "seventeenth century demolition "-->seventeenth-century demolition
  • The lead needs a few inline citations. For example, "The style of papal tombs has evolved considerably throughout history, tracking trends in the development of church monuments." One at the end of each paragraph is enough.
  • "sarcophagi " Link?
  • "(most notably, the combination of Popes Leo I, II, III, and IV)" What makes this example the most notable? You might say "for example".
  • All date ranges need en dashes. However, full date ranges need spaced en dashes, while year ranges need unspaced en dashes. See my sample edits.
  • Per WP:ACCESS, having hidden boxes in the article is a no-no.
  • Check the toolbox, there are several dismbiguation links that need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I will do my best to address them.
  • The article that you link does not seem typical to me among the featured lists. I see to criteria that outlaws self-reference, and therefore would prefer that recommendations in this area be made in terms of policy or some other specific improvement.
FL moved away from the "This is a list of" opening sentence style beginning in late 2008. Likewise, FAs don't start with "This is an article of ..." This is a matter of style, so it isn't based specifically on the criteria.—Chris! ct 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is a matter of criteria (engaging lead), and see WP:LEAD—"If the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs..."." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you look at promoted FLs from about October 2008 and later, you'll notice the change. See WP:FLL for recently promoted examples. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2009
I have reworked the intro. Savidan 23:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • I have added a citation to the sentence you quote.
  • Done
  • Changed
  • I intend to rename the list "list of extant papal tombs" and will finish moving the hidden content out of the article shortly. Please stand by.
  • I did the dashes.
  • Could you be more specific? I have no idea what toolbox functionality you are referring to, but would be glad to fix any incorrect links. Savidan 18:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a toolbox on the right-hand side of this page. It has three links: the top (first) is to the disambiguation links. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I eliminated the remaining undisambiguated link. Savidan 23:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Century" should not be capitalized.
  • Peter has a strange second pontificate date: "post42/ante57–64/67(?)".
  • The lead sentence is much better. However, it is a bit too "in-subject". Could you provide a basic sentence on who the pope is? Perhaps a condensed version of the first sentence of pope. Remember that we have to strive to help the general audience understand. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you will find my changes acceptable. The double date on Peter is because, strictly speaking, the title of "bishop of Rome" did not exist for the entire period of his leadership. I have modeled this after the list of popes. Savidan 01:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Support - looks good —Chris! ct 02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose with comments...
    • Lead is weak - you state the pope's role then launch immediately into papal tombs - can we find a connecting sentence so this doesn't read quite so cut-throat?
    • You have a note on non-extant papal tombs but not antipope tombs. I don't even know what an antipope is. Could you help the reader with this?
    • "...emptied by repeated translations ..." what do you mean exactly? Translation can take on a number of meanings, I guess you mean it was moved around a lot?
    • Not sure why the Pontificate dates are smaller text.
    • Nor why Common English names are in bold. And sometimes there are more than one, so should it be "Common English name(s)"?
    • Empty cells are always a bad thing. I don't know if you're suggesting (1) there is no sculptor (2) the sculptor is unknown (3) you forgot to fill it in (4) something else?
    • Some of the tomb images are not tombs at all, they are images of churches etc.
    • Unclear (to me at least) what (above) and (below) means. I may have missed something obvious though, so apologies if I have.
    • Is there a reason why I see O.S.B. in italics in one place and not in another?
    • What is Can. Reg.?
    • Lucius III has a nasty link its tomb image. Discouraged.
    • I prefer references to be in numerical order, so [60][28] ought to be [28][60] for me.
    • "Modified in 1994[61][59][61]" - double 61 citation.
    • "...all sixty statuettes..." MOSNUM - 60.
    • " September 5, 1606 " - other dates don't have that rogue comma - check others...
    • "See Moses and Dying Slave" - what's the context of this note?
    • Maybe it's against MOS but I don't understand why we have book references such as "Mann, 2003, p. 1." in Notes before we see what those books actually are (listed in References).

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your thorough review. I went ahead and just made most of your changes, which you can review: here. I will comment on the ones that I have not made (yet):
    • My initial reaction is one of being tugged back and forth. One reviewer considers a certain sentence absolutely necessary context to the following sentence; another considers it to be "cut-throat". I would be at less of a total loss for words if you could be more specific in what, for you, would constitute a "connecting sentence" in this context.
      • Agreed, and usually an inevitable result of me showing up late after things have been endlessly discussed. So, the idea of these sort of comments isn't to mandate any approach, simply to suggest an alternate way of phrasing things. It won't, on its own, result in a continuing oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took most of your other aesthetic comments at face value, even though they were made with no particular reference to a MOS guideline or FL criteria. However, here I think the bold words. It makes it easier for the reader to find the link to the article about the pope. "Name(s)" wouldn't make sense in this context because there is never more than one "name" listed; it only lists "Saint [name]" or "[name] the Great" if applicable, which are different reference styles, but the same "name".
    • You are correct. They are images of the church in which the pope was entombed. I did this in cases where no free image existed of the tomb in question. If you can give me a good reason why I should remove these, I will.
      • I'm not suggesting you remove the images, but the title of "tomb" is slightly misleading when you have an image of a church or cathedral, not the tomb itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to violate the MOS (by changing the order of the notes and references sections) for a subjective preference. This would only subject the article to better-grounded objections. This is standard academic practice, with many papers and books have footnotes in this abbreviated style before the references section which lists the works that the footnotes refer to. Savidan 20:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An antipope is a historical papal claimant currently regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as illegitimate." - do you mean their claim is illegitimate or the individual is illegitimate? Just a minor point... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed "Tomb" to "Image". This makes no promise to the reader about what they are going to see. It could be a picture of the tomb; it could be a picture of whatever part of the tomb is left; it could be a picture of the church where the tomb/remaining fragments are housed. I hope this resolves your concerns about "misleading" the reader. Your last comment caused me to think a little. I think that syntactically (and correctly) this sentence means that the antipope/claimant is illegitimate, but it does imply that the claim is illegitimate (or, more naturally, incorrect in the eyes of the current Church). Illegitimacy is a property of the person themself, as in an illegitimate child. Savidan 21:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_extant_papal_tombs/archive1&oldid=1143898845"