Template:Did you know nominations/Papal conclave, 2013

The following is an archived discussion of Papal conclave, 2013's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC).

Papal conclave, 2013 edit

(

)

... that any Roman Catholic baptised male is eligible for election as pope in March 2013?

Reviewed: Elizabeth Wolley

Created by Canuckian89 (talk). Nominated by Surtsicna (talk) at 15:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Article is new enough and long enough. Hook fact is supported by inline citation. However, there are a couple of statements that need sources (marked with the cn tag), which should be easily fixable. -Zanhe (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think this hook is appropriate and related enough as a hook. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not? It is clearly related to the election, and the article is about the election. If you can come up with an alternative hook, that would be great. I considered mentioning one of the likely successors, but there's a rule against "hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing". Then again, I doubt the cardinals (i.e. the only people who will get to vote) would be influenced by a Wikipedia article. In other words, I doubt that rule is relevant here. Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that the papal conclave of 2013 is being convened as a result of the resignation of Benedict XVI, the first pope to resign since Gregory XII in 1415?

ALT1 is fine, and preferable to the original IMO. However, the citation issues with the article still remain. -Zanhe (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever hook is used, I propose this been reserved for the day the conclave start (assuming it starts by 25 March). -- KTC (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. -Zanhe (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as The Guardian can be considered a reliable source for a statement of this magnitude, I much prefer the original hook as it is far more interesting ("hooky") than ALT1, to which many readers would reply Yes, I did know that. —SMALL JIM 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That is my opinion too. Just in case someone expresses doubt about the reliability of The Guardian, I've also cited Catholic News Service. There appears to be a number of sources confirming this. Surtsicna (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the statement is widely repeated and presumingly based on the historical precedences of non-priest elected pope (e.g. Leo X), and the statement in Universi Dominici Gregis that "If the person elected is not already a Bishop, he shall immediately be ordained Bishop" along with the bit in the code of canon law that states "A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly." -- KTC (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please review the article again? If it OK, it should be promoted soon. Once the conclave starts, it is likely that it will be featured in the news section, which would prevent it from appearing as a DYK hook. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is in a constant state of flux and has changed significantly since the last time I looked at it. I restored a reference that was for some reason deleted, and expanded the bare links. It looks fine now, but may change by the time it get on DYK. Both hooks are good to go. -Zanhe (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for your help. Yes, the article is being edited constantly, which is why the hook should be promoted as soon as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)