Wikipedia:Peer review/1799–1800 papal conclave/archive1
Papal conclave, 1800[edit]
I have been working on this article since yesterday and am rather pleased with its progress, I certainly have learnt alot. Now, I am stuck; I am not sure what else to do with the article to make it perfect, perhaps people could provide suggestions. --Oldak Quill 13:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You could compare it to the other conclaves listed in the Category:Papal conclaves and see what it is lacking. For example, the Papal conclave, 1878 page has a pretty nice summary table at the end. You might also fix the category so that it sorts under '1800' instead of 'P'. — RJH 05:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have corrected the category. The contents of the table in 1878 is more than replicated in the table at the top of the article. Further, the conclave is acutely compared with others throughout the course of the article - last not in Rome, etc. Do you mean a section discussing its uniqueness and difference? --Oldak Quill 10:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The intro paragraph attributes the occupation of Rome and the "kidnapping" of Pius VI to "Napoléon I". A couple of points: (1) Napoleon did not become Emperor of the French until 1804; before that, he was known as "Napoleon Bonaparte." (2) Napoleon did not occupy Rome; that was done by Berthier in 1798, at a time when France was still ruled by the Directory, and Bonaparte was engaged in the invasion of Egypt. (In fact, in 1796, after Bonaparte did defeat the Papal army, he defied the Directory's order to occupy Rome and dethrone the Pope, correctly anticipating that this would provoke opposition among both the French and Italian populations.) There are some other references in the "Historical Context" section that also attribute things to Bonaparte that he didn't do. (Also, you could stand some spell-checking.) RussBlau 17:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I have corrected all of the factual inaccuracies you have kindly pointed out, and also all mistakes. Perhaps you could tell me which factual inaccuracies remain in the Historical Context secion. Thanks, Oldak Quill 19:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've made a few more minor edits to the historical section, and think it is now in very good shape. RussBlau 15:24, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I have corrected all of the factual inaccuracies you have kindly pointed out, and also all mistakes. Perhaps you could tell me which factual inaccuracies remain in the Historical Context secion. Thanks, Oldak Quill 19:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Very will researched article - I learned a let. However, IMHO the prose is a little stodgy and unclear in places - it could do with rephrasing. Sorry I can't help - but I know nothing about the subject matter, so I'd only get it wrong. --Doc Glasgow 09:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)