*Oppose
- The footnotes should be capable of taking correctly formated references. See WP:FOOT for advice on referencing footnotes using the #tag device.
- "sixteen", "eighteen" - MOSNUM -> 16, 18.
- Not sure if we should use bold text for the cardinal-nephew column names. Check with WP:MOS#BOLD.
- "...of the Cardinal Nephew are denoted..." that seems to wikilink to a part of the article that doesn't exist for me.
- A pity the column widths from tale to table aren't the same.
- Per WP:MOS#Images we should avoid forcing images to sizes other than those described by
thumb and upright.
- "unprecedent five cardinal" - unprecedented?
- Urban VI and Boniface IX appear to share same dates.
- What does published 8 November 1430 mean? Could this etc. be footnotes?
- Francesco Piccolomini has a blank cell for relationship.
- Grandnephew or Grand-nephew?
- "Scipione Borghese Caffarelli†" and "Francesco Maidalchini†" have no notes. Does this imply they are not cited by any of the references used here?
- It may be useful to know what languages your various References are.
- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your thorough review of the article. In many ways, I appreciate your meticulous oppose far more than a support vote. I have implemented most of your changes already. I have also asked CarlosPn to add the language information about the non-English references. It is unclear to me how to remedy three of your comments (and two of them are interrelated). First, would you mind being a little more specific about what you want me to do with the footnotes in reference to your first comment. Second, are you actually experiencing problems with the table width/image size? I experimented with the formatting in a variety of ways, and this was the only way I have found so far to get the images on the right of the table without seeing images overlap with tables or tables of different display widths. I would appreciate it if you could refer me to a list that accomplishes this within the parameters of the guidelines you have linked. Savidan 17:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're very welcome. To be more specific about the footnotes, have a look at John Wark and his [nb 1] etc markup. These are footnotes which have references like normal citations, as opposed to the weblinks being added directly in the middle of the footnote as you have in, say, footnote 4 - "... electronic [1] [2] [3] do not mention his cardinalate ..." - those [1] [2] [3] are hyperlinks and should instead be referenced at the end of the sentence to regular references. I hope that's clearer? I'm no expert, I learned this method just recently. Second, no problems with widths, image sizes, just that it would be more aesthetically pleasing for tables containing the same information from section to section to have the same column widths. As for image sizes, I simply drew your attention to the manual of style to which we should be doing our best to adhere, so not forcing image sizes away from thumb/upright. It's not a spectacular failing, and I would be loathe to continue to oppose based upon that alone, but its easily solved. If you remove all the
150px etc from the landscape images and replace the 150px stuff with just upright to the portrait ones. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. One solution to the table columns is to remove the sections you have in place and keep the list as a single table. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed the images to upright, and--to my knowledge--all of the tables have each column as "200". Am I missing something here? I am hesitant to combine to the the sections into one large table, however, as that would reduce the navigability of the list. Taking another look at the footnotes you refer to, I am now leaning towards removing from the list all claims that a source "does not mention" a certain cardinal, and including such notes only when sources actively disagree. However, I will wait until CarlosPn has a chance to weigh in on this. Savidan 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite using tables a lot, I'm no expert on markup - have you tried setting them to "200px"? or "20%"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well 200px didn't work. Can I just clarify, when you look at the tables, do you agree that the col widths of 11th, 12th, 18th and 19th century tables are different from the 13th to 17th century tables? I see the same thing in Firefox (I'm using Safari, by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm using Safari and they all appear to be the same width to me, both in page view and the source. Savidan 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird. Safari 4.0.1 and Firefox 3.0.3 (behind the times) on Mac OS X. Wonder what IE7 will make of it... If it's just me then we can safely ignore it I suppose! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy to change the formatting of the tables to increase compatibility with all browsers, if you can suggest a means other than combining them into one large table. Savidan 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also having problems with these tables and images overlapping (on Firefox). What I can see is File:List of cardinal-nephews FLC problem.png. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I've sorted my problem, it was caused by a couple of curly quotation marks where straight ones should have been. Is everything still okay for you Savidan, and has this fixed your problem TRM? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed for me, great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. I think the problem must have originated from my copying and pasting from Word. Savidan 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an update on the original comments. The references within the notes and the foreign language refs have been mended. Please let me know if you have any outstanding comments. Savidan 20:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
