Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mortara case/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC) [1].
Mortara case[edit]
- Notified: Italy, Christianity, talk page notification 24-04-2020
Review section[edit]
This article needs updating and improvement, because since it was promoted the affair became prominent again due to First Things publishing an article which justified the kidnapping. Also, the article relies almost entirely on a single source. Because it neglects other sources written about the subject (listed on talk), it cannot be considered well researched. buidhe 07:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think it fails 1a. It has several snake-like sentences that are a real headache to read. Did you also notify the original writers of the article? Eisfbnore (会話) 19:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- John M Wolfson
seizure of a six-year-old boy named Edgardo Mortara from his Jewish family in Bologna,
"named" is unnecessary IMO, as is the boldingMany employers would simply sack girls in such situations
"Sack" is too informal, perhaps "terminate" would be betterthey told neighbours that their maid was sick and recuperating at home.
Just say "Morisi" or "she" in place of "their maid"
This is just a sample, but agreed with Eisfbnore that this is suboptimally written. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I should have cited some examples of the serpentine sentences. Here is one:
- The official church position was that Catholics should not baptise Jewish children without the parents' consent, except if a child was on the brink of death—in these cases the church considered the customary deferment to parental authority to be outweighed by the importance of allowing the child's soul to be saved and go to Heaven, and permitted baptism without the parents' assent.
- I almost keeled over trying to parse that sentence. I can't fathom why this wasn't picked up on in the FAC. The GA review was also very short, although carried out by an experienced editor, whom I respect tremendously. Eisfbnore (会話) 22:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I should have cited some examples of the serpentine sentences. Here is one:
FARC section[edit]
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above. buidhe 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Unresolved NPOV and factual verification tags. DrKay (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per DrKay-- from that era when FACs were not being well scrutinized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.