Talk:Pope Sisinnius

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pope Sisinnius/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 00:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hi, Unlimitedlead! I'm Pbritti, a regular contributor to Catholic/Christian topics with a little experience in the GA sphere (both reviewing and nominating). I've noticed your hard work on English Christian and monarchy articles and have been nothing but impressed! As such, when I saw you had nominated this article and I saw the sources are mostly texts I have either on my bookshelf or can access, I figured I was a good fit as a reviewer. This process may take me a couple days but I'm keen to give you some quick feedback. If you have any questions or any concerns, you're more than welcome to ping me here or comment on my talk page! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, both for the kind words and the initiative to review! I look forward to receiving feedback on this article. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

First look: I decided that a short article should be given quick once-over first to find any easily resolved issues. Overall, the material here almost precisely matches the sources in terms of content, though avoids crossing the threshold between paraphrasing and plagiarizing. There are only a few things I think bear mention:

• I decided to drop Category:Asian popes as (unlike Category:Popes) it is not a non-diffusing category.
• The phrasing in the lead comes across as too casual with the phrase "Besides the fact". I'm nitpicking here. Consider this an optional change.
• The sentence on the two recorded actions during his reign (the consecration and the lime prep) might do better as two separate sentences. I can suggest a rewrite if you'd prefer, but again this is only a diction change rather than a real impediment to fulfilling the GA standards.

Overall, great work. Grammar and other langiage-related requirements are fulfilled. MOS here appears to match the standards for a GA. I'll be reviewing the references and citations next. Apologies if this isn't done until tomorrow; I received positive professional news that is bad for my availability on Wikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti Never apologize for receiving such wonderful news! Take all the time you need; the comments have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, Unlimitedlead. I lied, I'm going to move on to knocking out some of the other criteria first:

• Criteria 3–Coverage: Y Absolutely appropriately broad coverage. I would argue it fulfills the elevated FA standard of "comprehensive". Comparing the article against its sources and two other good sources on popes (1902 Catholic Encyclopedia article and Britannica online article), the article provides all major points and reflects the limited primary sources involved while avoiding speculation.
• Criteria 4–Neutrality: Y As we all know, Pope Sisinnius is among the most controversial figures in Latin Christianity. I think this article just barely manages to avoid the partisan pitfalls. In all seriousness, the article's reliance on some of the best reliable sources on this topic is a good indicator. The phrasing of his praises is done in a neutral, non-puffery fashion. All other material is similarly NPOV.
• Criteria 5–Stability: Y Uncharacteristically stable article. Only major revision is that which preceded this nomination.
• Criteria 6–Illustration: Y I'm going to give a soft maybe here. Portraits of Sisinnius of any true accuracy almost certainly do not exist. However, several depictions do exist and are on the Commons: 1842 The Lives and Times of the Popes (removed March 2021 for its "fanciful" nature; less compressed but uncropped version), rendition of mosaic from Saint Paul's Outside the Walls, 1879 Ritratti e biografie dei romani pontefici (uncropped), and this very funny one. Leaving out a portrait is fine, and any portrait included would likely require a caption that explained the anachronism. If we don't use a portrait, maybe a depiction of Old St. Peter's being demolished could color his tomb's demolition? I do not consider this an absolute imperative and leaving the article unillustrated is perfectly suitable.

Again, excellent work. Expect the references fully reviewed tonight or tomorrow (US time). ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, @Unlimitedlead: lets hit the first two criteria last:

• Criteria 1–Writing: Y My preliminary review of the article was largely meant to pick up on this kind of thing. Everything in the article is plainly adequate according to the more descriptive standards available in some of the suggested GA criteria guides. I only have a couple recommendations. Perhaps consider retitling the main body section to something like "Life" or "Life and legacy". Additionally, consider breaking the first paragraph of that section into two paragraphs, with the second starting with the sentence beginning By birth, Sisinnius. However, these are very minor recommendations and Criteria 1 is fulfilled in full as it stands right now.
• Criteria 2–Verifiability: Y All material written in article appears to be reliably sourced and accurately reflective of the referenced sources. A notable case study in the quality of this is article is the reference of Sisinnius consecrating a bishop: was this a bishop of Corsica (as in McBrien) or a bishop for Corsica (as in Kelly & Walsh and this article). The more accurate phrasing is "for", as there wasn't a singular diocese encompassing Corsica during Sisinnius's time. I mention this case as a demonstration of the verifiability and contextual understanding deployed in this article. In the more technical sense, the citations align with the sources and page numbers given (though frankly almost every source could be used to reference any fact in this article). Excellent work.

Alright, that's my review according to the criteria. Feel free to respond to any of the suggestions and recommendations I've made with "No thanks, I'm good"; I am willing to pass this article as is! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti I have renamed the section "Life and papacy"; I do not see how I can logically split the paragraphs as is, so I have decided to leave it be. Thank you for taking the time to review this article! Your diligent work is much appreciated. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead: My pleasure. Any thoughts on my comments regarding illustration? Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that any addition of an image would warrant a lengthy explanation and justification for using an image that is neither time-period-appropriate nor accurate. I am sure it would just get removed by someone for those reasons anyhow, and personally, I find that the article is just fine without one. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Passed Congrats! Review complete, will implement the necessary edits to register the promotion! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Additional sources that might be useful

I've decided to keep tabs on this article now that Unlimitedlead has successfully brought it to GA status. I see they intend to bring it to FA status (with a peer review along the way!). Since I'm not at that level of expertise yet, I'm going to simply offer additional sources and descriptions of their utility when I encounter them. The first of these is "The Papacy and Byzantium in the Seventh- and Early Eighth-Century Sections of the Liber Pontificalis" by Rosamond McKitterick (accessible at JSTOR 24780066). Page 256 references Sisinnius's entry in the Liber Pontificalis as "Life 89" and notes that the length of the vacancy following his death is recorded, a fact not currently mentioned in the article. It's minor, but it's something. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Pope Sisinnius was pope for only 20 days? Source: Kelly & Walsh 1988, p. 85. , McBrien 2000, p. 117.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Oscar Ortiz (Bolivian politician)

Improved to Good Article status by Unlimitedlead (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Pope Sisinnius; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New GA. Sources and neutrality look good. Hook is short, interesting and cited; AGF on the source. QPQ done. Ffranc (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Sisinnius was Syrian and his father was named John - Really?

This is very strange. Can anyone explain how a Syrian of the time can have acquired the English name John? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Barefoot through the chollas: It is not uncommon for persons who lived long ago to possess anglicized names they never used. For example, Alexander the Great. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure: "Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, known in English as Pompey" and innumerable examples similar. However, a statement that he "was named Pompey" would be absurd, and as false as an article in Italian declaring that Julian Lennon's father was named Giovanni, or an article in Spanish claiming that the lead singer of the Stones is named Miguel. In the specific case of Sisinnius's father, if enough is known to report (spuriously) that his father "was named John", a more likely genuine name is available for citation. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It really depends on a number of factors. John Lennon marketed himself under that name both in Britain and worldwide, so it would be unusual for someone to know him by a different name. In German, the common name for George III is Georg III.; Italians call him Giorgio III. It depends on what is commonly used in reliable sources. In the case of this article, the anglicized name is preferred by academic publications, hence "John". ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Liber Pontificalis says his father was Iohannes.

Philologick (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've now tweaked it just enough that the mention of his father's name isn't outright silly. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, ancient names that take modern English spellings in modern reliable sources are presented as such. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Obviously it's not a question of spelling. His father is not well known historically, such as Alexander the Great or Christopher Columbus. He earned precious little mention in anglophone historical writings, and it's absurd, as well as untrue, that he was named John. It's similar to the principle of oft-mentioned historically important towns and cities vs. those seldom mentioned: Florence but Scandicci, Turin but Carignano, etc., etc. -- even with that, no one, no matter how militantly anglophone, would ever claim that Firenze was ever actually named Florence. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We use the anglophone spelling because the reliable sources do. You even demonstrate the futility of your argument: no one claims that because we call Florence as such in the article that its native name isn's Firenze. Please don't return to this article again in 4 months to try this again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. No one writing of Firenze would come up with the nonsense of "the city being named Florence", parallel to the absurdity (magnified by the dates in question) "his father being named John" of a Syrian who died in the year 708.

Re your parting comment, you might want to take note that this is not your private article. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)