Wikipedia:Featured article review/Papal Tiara/archive1

Papal Tiara

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism and Talk:Papal Tiara

A pretty good article overall, but needs several changes to meet the requirements of a featured article:

Intro is too short and does not summarize information from the History or Design sections.
The History section focuses almost entirely on the 20th century popes, with little mention of the History of the Tiara in the period 1314-1900. It jummps straight from the origins to the "last crowned pope." In the Origins sections there is only one reference to only one author, Noonan.
The Vicarius Filii Dei section is just a mess, far too long for a single conspiracy theory. Rather than giving a good summary origin and historicla context of the 666 controversy, it gives a complicated point-by-point rebuttal which delves into original research and the focus on lack of evidence.
The Usage section has only one reference and doesn't really deal with the way the usage of the tiara has evolved over time.
The Other Tiara's section has no references, particularly for the Ottoman claim, which should have a source.
There are also far too many images, which clutter the text and in at least one instance create a big gob of white space. There are far too many images whose only connection to the article is "Pope XXX wearing the tiara". The images that are used should make sense in the section they are used and contribute to the content in that section.
The "A permanent end to the wearing of the triple tiara?" section has too much speculation and too few sources. For example, the claim "Pope Benedict XVI has confirmed the continued use of representations the tiara as an official symbol of the papacy" without a reference. Benedict XVI certainly hasn't worn the tiara, so this statement would need to be more specific and more referenced.

These are the most obvious problems with the article which should be addressed. I'd like to see them fixed because in a few places this article is actually quite brilliant and I'd like to see it remain featured if fixed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1. The intro is continually being rewritten, it is suspected, by the same user using various identities, to reinsert variations on his own substandard opening. When I get the chance I will undo his damage, again (that's the downside of an open edit encyclopaedia, I suppose. People who don't what they are doing can totally screw up a good article.)

Re 2. The reason it focuses on the twentieth century popes is because many of the files on earlier usage, which would be needed to write a comprehensive review of earlier usage, have not been released by the Vatican. In the absence of other information most historians have not been able to write detailed histories of past usage. With few books little is available for inclusion. (I have been able to source some new material. Since I wrote this article it has spurred the writing of other articles elsewhere and led to a couple of academic articles on the topic, bringing more sources into the public. Also older encyclopaedia articles on the topic have now been scanned and are available. Twentieth century popes are a different matter, as alternative sources (notably media reportage and Vatican Press office information) has enabled histories of usage to be supplied.

Re 3: The Vicarius Filii Dei is necessarily long and follows the standard Wikipedia approach to dealing with complex issues. Unless a lot of detail is put in rebutting the nonsense, promoters of the myth would use the gap to pack out with wacky 666 claims. Where such dangers exist, it is normal to write a long section, notwithstanding a main article elsewhere, to close off the scope for conspiracy theorists to promote the myth in the article. (I have learnt from experience on many articles elsewhere over four years that leaving out a controversial aspect, or writing a short summary, is a recipe for disaster. It simply leaves the field open for conspiracy theorists to add in dodgy claims and fight edit wars to stop them being removed. The more detail and rebuttals with images are supplied, the less likely unsourced claims are likely to be added in, so maintaining the quality of the overall article.)

Re 4, 5: More information has now become available including long out of print texts that were not reissued until this article was written by me and then copied all over the net. (It has also apparently featured in newspaper articles in Ireland, Britain, Italy and the US.) That will now be added in. As the topic had not received much attention before this article and the tiara was not a very popular current issue, there was very little information available when this article was written originally.

Re 6. I disagree that there are two many images, as do many others who have read the article and commented on it. I happen to be aware that a number of academics off Wikipedia, plus someone in the Vatican, has commented favourably on the article because of the number of images, arguing that on a topic so visual as a set of crowns the article shows examples of usage and context. Given that individual tiaras are associated with individual popes, and the mythology concerning the supposed decoration of different tiaras, it is necessary, again to disarm pushers of the myth, to show sufficient evidence of usage stretching over papacies, times, angles, etc to discourage edit warring on the issue.

Re 7: Given that there is a question mark at the end of that section, by its nature the paragraph has to be speculative, as we do not know if there is a permanent end to the wearing of the papal tiara. The claim "Pope Benedict XVI has confirmed the continued use of representations the tiara as an official symbol of the papacy" is patently self evident. The papal flag still has the tiara. The coat of arms of the Holy See and of the Vatican both have the papal tiara. Every document issued in the Pope's name using the Vatican crest includes the tiara. The tiara was simply removed from one small area, the Pope's own personal coat of arms, and even there I have heard that some texts have been released by the Vatican showing a version of his coat of arms with the tiara. (I understand that most people in the Vatican regard Benedict's coat of arms as hideous and that he is rather embarrassed by them himself. But he is stuck with them.) Given that formal banner and crests are issued by new popes, and the crests and banners all have the tiara, ipso facto Benedict has "confirmed the continued use of representations the tiara as an official symbol of the papacy." Maybe the sentence just needs reframing to make clear just how self-evident it is. (I don't think I wrote that particular sentence but I could be wrong. I wrote this article some time ago.)

I do think the standard of this article has slipped a bit since I last visited it. Even do often I have had to return and do a cull of dodgy additions and reinsert strange deletions of text. I'll give the text a thorough going over in the next few days. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 03:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response! I look forward to your changes to the intro and the addition of references in the places you mentioned. I won't comment on these further until you've had a chance to fix them and incorporate these new sources.

I would like to ask you, though, on this Benedict XVI issue whether the analysis that Benedict has "confirmed" something is your own or that of another author. The statement of facts like the fact that it shows up on his coat of arms is fine. But, if it is to be implied that the tiara could make a comeback as a result of these facts, that should be attributed to a published source. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a) quality, consistency, and length of presentation (1c and 4). Marskell 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak remove. There are easily remediable issues—shortish LEAD, red-linked pic, rhetorical question as a headline—that do not rise to remove. Instead, I tilt that way because I agree with the nominator's concern over the jump from origins to the 20th century. This is jarring and doesn't read well. FearEIREANN notes "The reason it focuses on the twentieth century popes is because many of the files on earlier usage...have not been released by the Vatican. In the absence of other information most historians have not been able to write detailed histories of past usage." If that is the case, the absence of info should be mentioned and sourced. But surely, something can be added post-1342 (various other sections mention pre-20th century dates, for instance). This is a weak remove because in other respects this is obviously a very comprehensive article. Marskell 07:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak remove. I agree with Tim that there's good about this article, and that it's a pity to remove it. But until the prose is raised to a "professional" standard, it should not be a FA. I picked out a few examples at random:
- "... replacing it with a ceremony of what was called "Inauguration of the Supreme Pontificate"; and after John Paul I's sudden death, Pope John Paul II told ...". The semicolon is the link; "and" should be removed. This blemish is right at the top.
- Throughout the article, there seem to be inconsistency WRT whether a comma is used after initial adverbial and prepositional phrases. The absence of a comma might be OK in places, but where nominal groups are jammed up against each other, it's hard to read; e.g., "However, in the coat of arms of the Holy See and of the Vatican City State Pope Benedict XVI decided to keep the tiara, not a mitre." (Comma after "Pope". More formal at the end would be "rather than", not "not".)
- Awkward/informal: "As with all previous popes, Pope Paul VI was crowned with ...". And the subsequent sentence starts with "As", too.
- Vague grammar: "Quite different from earlier tiaras, it was not covered in jewels and precious gems, and was sharply cone-shaped." The problem with the first phrase is that it raises the possibility of differences aside from the two that are explicated. I don't think that's the intention; if it is, we'd like to know what they are. Tony 01:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Certain subsections have zero inline citations, and other sections need more inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Referencing problems is some sections. I'm a bit confused with the organization of "Footnotes" and "References" (why some sources of the footnotes are not mentioned in the references and the opposite). External links in footnotes are not properly citated (lacking author, title, date they were retrieved etc.). Very short lead.--Yannismarou 09:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]