Talk:Santi Romano/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Gitz6666 (talk · contribs) 09:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 04:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm Pbritti and I'm glad to be reviewing this article. Looking forward to a bit of a change of pace for this review, as I usually stick to other subject areas. Please expect comments today UTC! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, Pbritti. I'll do my best to reply ASAP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid life has happened. Gitz6666, can you wait until the end of this upcoming week for a continuation on this review? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely not a problem, I'm also quite busy at the moment! Thanks for letting me know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you so much. Looking forward to giving your work the treatment it deserves. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early comments

Was busier than anticipated—a charcuterie board was involved—but I've now read the article and some minimal outside searching. A couple initial comments are below.

Consider elaborating on the ecclesiastical law element. As of right now, it's by inference that we're referring to Catholic canon law.
This strikes me as a source that ought to get integrated. I would note how it even identifies the dates of translations.

Thank you. Excellent source, worth integrating. I'll do it as soon as possible (I'm also quite busy in RL and on the wiki). The dates of translation of his major works match: Romano, S. [1918] 2017. The Legal Order.

Your first point is tricky. I know from personal knowledge aka WP:OR that "ecclesiastical law" was not synonymous with "canon law" as our redirect might imply. By "ecclesiastical law", legal scholars like Romano did not mean the internal law of the Catholic Church ("canon law"), but the law governing the relationship between the State and the Catholic Church. Most of that law was usually described as domestic (state) public law. So it would be worth creating a separate article "Ecclesiastical law" to clarify the point. Now I have the sources, but not the time. And I don't have a source for Romano stating that he didn't use "ecclesiastical law" as a synonym for canon law, so I'd prefer to leave the matter untouched in this article and create an "Ecclesiastical law" article in the future, or at least a section on "Ecclesiastical law" in our "Canon law" article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done (re new source, De Wilde) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

There appears to be a citation needed for verifying his death, as well as his final years in solitude.

Source spot check

1e. Website is the official biographical website of the Italian senate in Italian, so reliability is safely assumed. All of these positions seem verified, but I think we only need a single citation for all this. I recommend a brief sentence introducing this section and its list.

Done

- 1f. Ibid.
- 1m. Ibid.
- 1p. Ibid.
- 1t. Ibid.
3b. Confirmed
4b.
5c.
6a.
6f.
6g.
9a.
11b.
14.
17.
19.
20.
22.
23. AGF
25.

Requesting 2nd opinion

I thought I'd have more time for this and that I could muddle through the Italian. Due to other commitments on and off the project and my uncertainty regarding my ability to actually 1.) verify cited content and 2.) ensure that this is comprehensive makes me believe I am unsuitable to continue this review. Ping me if a 2nd opinion is not forthcoming by next year. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pbritti, I thought I would drop in just to remind that GAs do not need to be "comprehensive", just "broad in their coverage", which is a significantly lower criterion. I assume you are aware of this, but thought I would clarify to prevent confusion for anyone considering fulfilling the second opinion request. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@It is a wonderful world: You are absolutely right. While I meant to say what you posted above (thanks for assuming the best), I definitely misspoke. The "broad coverage" bar is not something I am comfortable ruling conclusively on in this case, much less the higher standard of "comprehensive". Good catch! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]