Talk:Seraphina Sforza/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seraphina Sforza was listed as good article. – Editør (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Editør (talk · contribs) 12:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Note[edit]

I've finished my review of the article. Most referenced sources are not available online, so I haven't been able to check those. The three sources that were available have led to the first three major issues. The other three major issues are about the notability of the subject and the coverage by the article. The nomination is currently on hold pending these major issues. If the major issues can be resolved, then I think the minor issues can easily be addressed in order for the article to pass. – Editør (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi! Thanks so much for reviewing this article. I'll leave comments on individual issues below!— Moriwen (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen your replies to my comments and your changes to the article, I will try to respond this weekend. – Editør (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article has improved considerably. Although the article is assessed as Start class, when the article was first nominated for GA it was probably C class, and now it is B class approaching GA class. I will add more detailed comments below. – Editør (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to hear it! Appreciate all the feedback throughout this process. Happy to dive into the minor issues, if you think it's ready for that?— Moriwen (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sure, go ahead! – Editør (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are almost there! (And I made some small edits to the article.) – Editør (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you again!! OK, I think I've hit everything so far.
    Ok, if you would look at the Google Books comment and the final copyeding suggestions, I think we may be there. – Editør (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have done! — Moriwen (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything is done! But, while writing my final statement, I found one more issue. The licensing tag of commons:File:SforzaSerafina.JPG is missing information including the country and date of publication in order to add the missing parameters. However, the listed source no longer exists (or is spelled wrongly), so I don't know how to find out about the publication date or the country. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not, since the image has a PD license, so I'll see if I can ask someone for advice on this. – Editør (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't got much further with the matter, see here and here. I suppose we can do two things: (1) wait until the copyright issue is resolved or (2) remove or replace the image in question and once the copyright issue is resolved you can decide to put it back or not. Do you have a preference? – Editør (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems totally replaceable to me; I'll just do that. Thanks for looking into it!— Moriwen (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And done!— Moriwen (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah great! I'll finish up now. – Editør (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Major issues
  • The article (started in 2008) appears to closely follow the structure of source #3 (Antonio Borrelli, 2006), yet this source is only referenced once, is there an explanation for this?
    • I don't have a deep explanation for this; it's just chronological, all of the sources follow pretty much the same structure.
      That seems reasonable. And because I didn't find sentences that were copied literally, I think this issue is resolved. – Editør (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim "letters from Alessandro to his brother" is not supported by source #7 (Cotton, Juliana Hill), that I believe indicates the letters about Sveva were written by someone else.
    • That's my bad for misreading the source, fixed!
      Check! – Editør (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Catholic Encyclopedia lemma states she was brought up by (Pope) "Martin V", is that incorrect?
    • Yeah, I'm baffled by why it says that; none of the other sources say anything of the sort.
      The pope and the uncle were both from the Colonna family, maybe that's what lead to the confusion. According to the Sources section, the article incorporates text from this encyclopedia. Is that still the case? If not, then I think the Sources section needs to be changed or removed. – Editør (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Double-checked and it doesn't look like there's any text from the Catholic Encyclopedia left, so I've removed that note.
  • What makes the article's subject notable, can this be made clearer, for instance at the start of the lead?
  • Did she have some form of legacy, perhaps was she a source of inspiration to (specific) people?
  • Why was she beatified, can this be clarified?
    • Last three questions: yeah, let me poke around a little bit and see if I can find any more information on her beatification/cultus. Stay tuned.
    • I've made some additions; see what you think now?
      I think that her notability, legacy, and beatification have become clearer.
      • The first lines of a Wikipedia article's lead are often what is displayed in a web search engine when you look up a name. So taking this as a guide, the lead should open with all the important information that explains who she was. When I look up "Seraphina Sforza" in my search engine now, it doesn't say she was a nun or that she was beatified. Is this crucial information? If so, I think that the lead should be edited.
        Makes sense to me! Edited.
        I think this is an improvement. Only "venerated as Blessed" sounds a bit odd to me, but I don't have a better suggestion. – Editør (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Suggestion for the first paragraph of the lead: "was an Italian beatified nun and noblewoman of the House of Montefeltro. She is venerated by the Catholic Church for her devout life of prayer despite the hardships in her life and marriage." – Editør (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I like it! Done.
      • The information in the Veneration section is not entirely in chronological order, I think that would improve it. Also, I presume a direct connection between the attested miracles and the beatification, so I don't think there should be a paragraph split between the miracles and the beatification.
      – Editør (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also done!
Minor issues
  • Why is her birth date uncertain, is this uncertainty mentioned in a source?
    I think we just don't have records of this. Every source I've found just says "1434", except for the one linked there; if I had to guess I'd guess that they're deducing "first half of 1434" from her age at some other life event that we do have the date for.
    If there is no explicit reason given, then it shouldn't be a problem the way it is. – Editør (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what state was she born and/or did she live?
    Born in Urbino, lived in Pesaro -- is there some specific place (other than the infobox) this should be mentioned to make it clearer?
    I meant in what country, since Italy did not yet exist at the time, was it Papal States? – Editør (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell both were independent city-states at the time.
    I see. Maybe you give the reader who doesn't know Urbino some context by adding the present-day location in the running text, something like "in the city-state Urbino, located in present-day Italy"? – Editør (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done!
  • Her death date is missing in the life section.
    Fixed!
  • Several wikilinked articles are redirects, this should be fixed.
    Wait, I'm confused, is that a problem? I thought that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Piping_and_redirects said this was the preferred style. I assume I'm misunderstanding something, sorry!
    The wikilink Poor Clare redirects to the article Poor Clares as is indicated by "(Redirected from Poor Clare)" below the article title. You can bypass the redirect by piping the link this way [[Poor Clares|Poor Clare]], that lets you keep the article text ("Poor Clare") and link to the target article directly. – Editør (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I'm just confused because the MOS link says "As per WP:NOTBROKEN and § Link specificity above, do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text". What am I misunderstanding here?
    You are right, I read over the reference to WP:NOTBROKEN and wasn't aware of this (part of the) guideline (that seems to me to mostly exist for administrative reasons). So I guess you can leave the redirecting links like they are now. – Editør (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the image a contemporary portrait? (alternative)
    Alternative seems clearly better! Substituting.
  • The image should have a caption.
    Done!
  • Is the "ballo" a dance choreography or a dance event?
    Clarified!
  • Does "in honor of the occasion" refer to the marriage or the joining?
    Clarified!
  • Only two sources are given for "Many hagiographies", so maybe "Some hagiographies" would be more appropriate?
    Didn't want to overdo the sources. Added some more.
  • Only one source is given for the plural "other sources mention".
    Changed to singular.
  • Is there supposed to be a comma here "by her aunt Vittoria Colonna, and her cousin Elisabetta Malatesta", because it would make more sense without.
    Removed.
  • What did he ask "her forgiveness" for?
    Presumably for cheating on her, but I don't think any of the sources I've read have actually specified in so many words; they just say he begged for her forgiveness.
    If it is not mentioned in the available sources, you can leave it like this. – Editør (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source #3 (Antonio Borrelli) should be marked Italian, and omits retrieval date.
    Done!
  • Source #7 (Cotton, Juliana Hill) should not be in all caps.
    Fixed!
  • Source #9 (Habig, Marion) should be formatted similar to the other sources, marked as dead link, and possibly retrieved from an archive.
    Done!
  • Beatification should be sourced.
    Done!
  • Feast day should be sourced.
    Done!
  • Wouldn't the article benefit from Template:Infobox saint or was it omitted for a reason?
    Added!
    I think that's an improvement. I would suggest wikilinking the places/Catholicism/Benedict, adding countries to places (see other comment about state/country), and adding her honorific prefix (| honorific_prefix = [[Beatification|Blessed]]). – Editør (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done!
  • Maybe commons:Category:Sveva da Montefeltro could be linked?
    Sure; is there a particular place that would be good?
    Somewhere at the bottom, usually in an External links section, but I would understand if you don't want to create one for just that link. – Editør (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source #11 (Leon, de Clary) mentions her mother was a niece to the pope, maybe this can be added to the beginning of the Life section.
    Oh, oops, I could've sworn I'd got it in there! Added.
  • Source #11 (Leon, de Clary) describes in great detail the events that happened between her and her husband after she moved into the convent and that she didn't become a nun right away. Shouldn't this be summarized and added to the Life section?
    Done!
  • Why are there so many links to Google Books, do they serve a purpose? Can they be replaced with links to a non-commercial alternative?
    No better reason than using a lot of sources off Google Books. Is there a preferred alternative?
    It might make sense to add a link when the referenced pages can be viewed there, but I don't see the point of adding a link for every book when it only serves as a commercial link to a book seller otherwise unconnected to the publication. (See also WP:GBOOKS and WP:GBWP.) A physical book doesn't need a link. – Editør (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the links and they make sense, thanks! Done.
  • Maybe an illustration can be added to the Veneration section? (suggestion)
    Done!
  • Make sure you use a single date format, I believe most dates are now dmy, so I would recommend using that. You can also add {{Use dmy dates}} at the top.
    Done!
  • Maybe an illustration can be added to the Life section? (suggestion; might be depicting Costanzo, Battista, and Alessandro Sforza in circa 1460, but this should be properly sourced)
    Added an illustration where I was able to find sourcing.
    It is a remarkable and interesting image, but the focus is on Battista who is only mentioned once, in brackets even, in this article; and it is difficult to understand what is going on, the long caption is already an indication of that; and as far as I understand the source, the identification of the people seems speculative. So I don't think this is right the image for this article section. – Editør (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The children on the Sforza Triptych are also uncertain, but Alessandro Sforza himself isn't, so maybe crop it like this?
    {{CSS image crop|Image = Rogier van der weyden (bottega), trittico sforza, 07.JPG|bSize = 800|cWidth = 170|cHeight = 235|oTop = 85|oLeft = 400|Location = left|Description = Detail of a the Sforza Triptych by [[Rogier van der Weyden]] from circa 1460 depicting [[Alessandro Sforza]]}}
    – Editør (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and added it, feel free to replace/improve it. – Editør (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After all the changes and rereading everthing, I have some final copyediting issues/suggestions:
    • Lead 1st paragraph: "devout life of prayer" seems double and "marriage" sounds repetitive with the next line. I suggest changing it into: "She is venerated by the Catholic Church for her life of devotion despite the hardships in her life."
      Rephrased.
    • Lead 2nd paragraph: "after carrying on a public affair with another woman" is confusing, who's the subject, I suggest removing it.
      Hmm, I'm hesitant to outright remove it -- the fact that Alessandro was publicly carrying on an affair seems like important enough context for his accusations that it feels wrong to totally leave it out of the lead. I've rephrased for clarity, see if you think it's OK now?
    • Life 1st paragraph: I suggest wikilinking Urbino.
      Done.
    • Life 3rd paragraph: "Lord of Pesaro", maybe clarify to "Lord of the city-state Pesaro".
      Done.
    • Life 3rd paragraph: "widower, with" and "1448, and" commas seem unnecessary.
      Removed.
    • Life 4th paragraph: "1453 letters" ambiguous, number or year? I suggest starting the sentence with "In 1453," instead.
      Done.
    • Life 5th paragraph: "duchy of Pesaro" should probably be "Duchy of Pesaro".
      Capitalized.
    • Life 6th paragraph: "Malatesta, and accused" comma seems unnecessary.
      Removed.
    • Life 7th paragraph: "Finally," sounds odd / too definitive, maybe replace with the year it happened or if that is unknown I'd suggest "Eventually,".
      Changed.
    • Life 7th paragraph: "the convent of Poor Clares at Pesaro", she already lived in Pesaro, so I suggest changing it to "the local convent of Poor Clares".
      Changed.
    • Life 7th paragraph: the first sentence is long, I suggest starting a new sentence after "Pesaro".
      Changed.
    • Life 7th paragraph: "where he placed guards to prevent her from communicating with anyone outside, over the protests of the Colonna family." I propose simplifying it to "He prevented her from communicating with anyone outside, over the protests of the Colonna family."
      Hmm, the guards feel like a relevant detail (as opposed to other, less forceful methods of preventing communication); see how you feel about it now that I've made the other simplifying changes?
    • Life 7th paragraph: "Alessandro's enquiries left him convinced of the truth of his suspicions, although some biographies maintain Sveva's innocence; according to Lèon de Clary, she refused to answer his questions, and Alessandro interpreted this as an admission of guilt." this long sentence is not clear to me, maybe it can be changed to "Alessandro was convinced of the truth of his suspicions about Sveva, and when she refused to talk about it he interpreted this as an admission of guilt, although some biographies maintain Sveva's innocence." if that corresponds with what you meant to say.
      This one has been so tricky to phrase in a way that seems appropriately neutral about conflicting evidence. Rephrased a bit, what do you think?
    • Life 8th paragraph: after "forgiveness." maybe add "He died later that year.<ref>Léon de Clary</ref>".
      Added.
    • Veneration 1st paragraph: "devotion, and many" comma seems unnecessary.
      Removed.
    • Veneration 1st paragraph: "tomb; when" I propose splitting into two sentences for simplicity "tomb. When"
      Split.
    • Veneration 2nd paragraph: "Poor Clare, and" comma seems unnecessary.
      Removed.
    • Veneration 2nd paragraph: "conversion; she" I propose two sentences here too "conversion. She".
      Split.
    • Veneration 2nd paragraph: "stepmother, or of" comma seems unnecessary.
      Removed.

Status[edit]

  • Overall: pass
    • Well-written: pass
      The prose of the article is clear and follows the Manual of Style guidelines.
    • Verifiable: pass
      The article has a formatted reference list with suitable publications. No original research or copyright infringement detected.
    • Broad: pass
      The article is focussed on all the main aspects of the subject.
    • Neutral: pass
      The article is written in an encyclopedic tone.
    • Stable: pass
      The article doesn't have content disputes.
    • Illustrated: pass
      The article is illustrated with suitable captions and without copyright issues.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seraphina_Sforza/GA1&oldid=1182942182"