Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mortara case/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2016 [1].

Mortara case edit

Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One night in Bologna in June 1858, police came to the home of an obscure Jewish merchant named Mortara and seized one of his children, six-year-old Edgardo, on the orders of the papal government. This child would find himself catapulted into the public eye across Europe and America, his well-being of concern to ambassadors, a secretary of state, a prime minister, a pope and even briefly an emperor as the Mortara family desperately tried to reclaim their son against the backdrop of Italian unification. The Mortara case has been given little prominence in most Risorgimento histories, if it is mentioned at all, but it remained very well-known among Jewish historians—to quote one of the affair's main scholars, David Kertzer, it "fell from the mainstream of Italian history into the ghetto of Jewish history". Since the 1990s, however, several scholars have highlighted it as one of the most important events of Pope Pius IX's papacy. Kertzer goes so far as to suggest that as a primary motivator for the French change of stance that precipitated Italian unification in 1859–61, this "story of an illiterate servant girl, a grocer, and a little Jewish child from Bologna" may well have changed the course of both Italian and church history.

This article just received a glowing GA review from Tim riley and I think it is at least close to FA standard. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to any comments you may have. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have only the smallest tweaks of prose to suggest with the FA prose criterion in mind. Those apart, the article meets all the FA criteria in my view.

  • Feletti, passim
    • He is labelled "Father Feletti", rather than simply surnamed, nine times during the article, and it might be as well to prune a few of the "Fathers".
  • Lead
    • The last sentence is arguably self-contradictory: Kertzer's study was itself a re-examination, rather than something that led to a re-examination. Perhaps "has given it greater prominence" or some such?
  • Instigation
    • "not likely to be consulted regarding" – "regarding" seems a trifle stiff: perhaps a simple "about" would be smoother?

That's all from me. Happy to support this unexpected and intriguing article for FA. Tim riley talk 08:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thank you very much Tim for the kind words, the helpful points and the support. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. A fascinating read on a subject I'd not come across before. I tripped over seeing "cruelest" in a British publication, but anything that ends up with Johnson at its head is capable of anything, I suppose! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Formatting is good, with three minor points to raise:
  • it may be worth adding The Spectator's issue number—1585—just for good measure (purely voluntary)
  • The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 8. You have the dates as c. 1815–c. 1914, but I've recently been told that the MoS prescribes using a spaced en dash if there is a "c." involved (The front cover of this edition also uses a space)
  • Is there an OCLC for L'anima di Pio IX: quale si rivelò de fu compresa dai Santi? (I appreciate that WorldCat isn't infallible on non-English publications)
Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this Gavin. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The article looks to be of FA quality and the subject interested me greatly. Z105space (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind words and the support; I'm glad you enjoyed it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Not a topic I'm intimately versed with, but I appreciate the way the sections are laced with appropriate contextual summaries to bring unfamiliar readers up to speed. The weight given to both accounts where the narrative parallels is also quite satisfying. There were perhaps one or two instances of stiff phrasing, which I edited. Just looking over the current coverage, linking, and notes I think the article could make for solid FA material. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Katangais, for the support, the kind words and the helpful tweaks. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - an interesting article! I do have a few (tiny) issues with the text that should be addressed though. "Church", for instance, should be capitalised when it refers to the Catholic Church and small only when it refers to a church building. More to follow. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the support, the kind words and the suggestion—have implemented. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up leading image and both maps
  • I've had a look at how it would be with the leading image up at 350px, but I have to say I personally prefer it at 300px. The two maps I've left as I think they would look unattractive if too large—the Papal States are clearly visible in both cases anyway, and one can always enlarge the map by clicking on it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Italy_1494_shepherd.jpg (source image of the first map) needs a US PD tag
  • File:San_Domenico75.jpg: since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the pictured building?
  • Long out of copyright, I'd say—the convent as a whole goes back to 1228 and I think this part dates to 1507. I've added PD-Italy and PD-1996 tags. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pioantonelli.jpg: can you be more specific on the source?
  • File:Moses_Montefiore.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this Nikkimaria. Hope all okay now. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments leaning support, I hope to finish this tonight. A few comments.

  • "If true, this would make the child no longer a Jew but a Catholic in the eyes of the Church" I would cut "no longer a Jew but". I think it's understood.
  • "Morisi fell pregnant" I would say "became" rather than "fell".
  • "The Pope was the official head of the Holy Office, but only occasionally attended its meetings, and was not likely to be consulted about what the cardinals saw as routine matters. It is not known by historians whether Pope Pius IX witnessed any of the early discussions over Mortara, or was otherwise aware of Feletti's initial investigation" I might reverse this and have the specifics about Pius first and then the generalized explanation after.
  • "Angelo Padovani, a prominent member of Bologna's Jewish community, resolved that their only hope was to appeal to Feletti." Is that something that you resolve? You might conclude that, but resolving generally involves an intent to do something going forward, not a conclusion.
  • "as opposed to the usual single meeting" could this be described as a farewell visit?
  • I suppose it could, but Kertzer doesn't call it that, so I'd be careful. What was by this time often allowed, he writes, was "a single visit by a family member and a representative of the Jewish community". —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "favoured by the Jewish communities and other backers" consider "community" for communities.
  • "the neophyte Edgardo" unless something technical is meant, I would say "young" for neophyte.
  • Neophyte in the religious context means a new convert, and the word is used deliberately in this sentence describing the pro-Church accounts to lightly say this is what they saw him as. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He indeed claimed that he did not himself know how to administer baptism" I'm OK with claimed I suppose but I'd cut "indeed". I don't see what it adds.
More soon. Very nicely done so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I look forward to more thoughts from you. Glad you're enjoying it so far. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just these
"22 bishops and archbishops" Anglican, I assume. May wish to mention it.
Further up, I would eliminate AD from the year the whole AD v CE thing.
Support It clearly meets the criteria. I knew about the case but am glad to have learned the details.Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the comments and the kind words Gary. I'm glad you enjoyed it and am very happy to have your support. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "Pope Pius IX, elected in 1846, was initially widely seen as a great reformer and moderniser who might throw his weight behind the growing movement for Italian unification—referred to in Italian as the Risorgimento (meaning "Resurgence")—but when the revolutions of 1848 broke out he refused to support a pan-Italian campaign against the Austrian Empire, which controlled Lombardy–Venetia in the north-east." -rather long, can you split/reword?

♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I split it and put a "however" in there —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removal
  • Rep of "she had" in "she had feared he might die. She said that she had "
Alatri
  • You state that Alatri is about 80 km from Rome but [2] actually states almost 100km. I suppose it means as the bird flies, and from the outskirts rather than the centre.

Support This really is a brilliant account of an important but apparently poorly documented event in Italian history. I can really find very little fault with it. Any Italian historian would have been proud to have written this, and having such a quality article in English on this is so valuable. Clearly meets the FA criteria, and it is one of the strongest articles I've read in recent months.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the extremely kind words, good doctor, it is very much appreciated. I'm pleased you enjoyed the article so much. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mortara_case/archive1&oldid=1138467191"