Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica/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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:25, 28 February 2012 [1].

Papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica edit

Featured list candidates/Papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica/archive1

Nominator(s): Savidan 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is modeled after the already-featured List of extant papal tombs and List of tombs of antipopes, with the eventual intention being to create a featured topic. Savidan 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (a few for now, and only format-related):

I believe that the per-century table of contents would be better placed just above the tomb table.
Use en-dash consistently in the pontificate date ranges.
Could you use a less darkened gray shade in the table? It becomes hard to read the text in such a poorly contrasting background (it's even worse for the visually impaired).
Where are the sources for the Gardner and Mann notes?
Is note 68 correct?
Note 56 should have an en-dash in the page range.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think my recent edits have addressed all these except the color. What color would you suggest? The table already looks perfectly readable to me, so, since its unclear to you, I'll go with whatever you suggest. Savidan 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, leave it. This tool says it's a good background color. Must've been my eyes, yesterday... not functioning properly. The rest is fine; I'll review the prose soon. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 12:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

In the table, remove the space before ref 14.
Leo IV, O.S.B.: Some kind of punctuation is needed before ref 33.
One thing I see across several note entries is that one ref is often used multiple times, when it's the only one being cited for that note. When that happens, it's fine to just have one cite at the end of a note.
Ref 36 should have a p. instead of pp., since it's a single-page cite.
Refs 65 and 66 could use a p. and pp., respectively, for consistency with the other Reardon cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I have remedied these. Savidan 15:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Check alt text exists for each image.
Second sentence in lead is mighty, could use one or two more splits.
Sometimes basilica is capitalised, sometimes not, in the lead. What's the criteria?
"a "monstrous" tomb" to whom is that "monstrous" quote attributed?
Notes which have multiple sentences should end with a full stop.
Why the use of bold in the pope name? I thought WP:MOSBOLD disagreed with the use of bold for emphasis.
That column is "Common English name" but in most cases there are multiple names in there.
Darkened background could probably use a symbol too, like a †.
Pontificate col doesn't sort correctly.
Check your image captions for consistency of use of full stops. (e.g. "The tomb of Pope Innocent VIII was the first to depict a live pontiff" needs one...)
Why is O.S.B. in bold italics?
Reardon publication year not in parentheses while other two are. Check consistent formatting.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of a few of these. Is there no way to sort numbers as numbers? Savidan 04:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers sort fine if the whole col is just made up of numbers. At least one entry is "text only" so in those cases you need to force the text to sort as an appropriate value using the {{sort}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay. I have been busy on- and off-wiki. You may archive this nomination, and I will address Rambling Man's comments before renominating. Savidan 13:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.