I wouldn't place any pictures except for infobox in the lead section, and am not sure what benefit
File:La Messa del Crisma.jpg gives
The WP:LAYOUT guidelines (MOS:PARAGRAPHS to be specific in this instance) discourage really short/really long paragraphs. I currently see three short paragraphs followed by one large paragraph and then a reasonably sized one. Try to arrange these so there's more of a balance in paragraph length.
Is "simpler" the best word to describe his approach to the papacy or the vestments he favors?
"most notably" isn't really neutral phrasing
six references for "and elsewhere" seems excessive per WP:OVERCITE; consider grouping or removing as two or three would be better
Something about "Summarily Pope Francis reiterates that" reads awkwardly
Personal life
Date of birth should be included here
It would help to mention all siblings by name
Why is Francis referred to by his last name here when it is rarely (if ever) used by the public?
I'd simply say María Elena is Francis' sister for simplicity sake rather than "His [Mario José's] daughter"
"She is the Pope's only living sibling. His brother Alberto died in June 2010"..... transition is too abrupt
"Bergoglio has been a lifelong supporter of the San Lorenzo de Almagro football club. Bergoglio is also a fan of the films of Tita Merello, neorealism and tango dancing, with an 'intense fondness' for the traditional music of Argentina and Uruguay known as the milonga" is completely trivial and should be removed
"Shortly after midnight, early in the morning of Tuesday, 19 August 2014, Alberto's son and Pope Francis's nephew, Emanuel Horacio Bergoglio, 35, was seriously injured when his car slammed into the back of a truck carrying grains. Emanuel's wife, Valeria Carmona, 39, and her two young sons (Pope Francis's great-nephews), Antonio Bergoglio, 8 months, and Joseph Bergoglio, 2 years old, were killed. The Vatican press office, in a statement, said that the Pope was asking for prayers for his deceased relatives" would be better suited for an article on Francis' brother Alberto than it would here; it's not something he's particularly noted for
Pre-papal career
Still not sure why he's listed by his last name
MOS:PARAGRAPHS issues throughout much of this section
Jesuit
"he had a crush on a girl he met at an uncle's wedding, so much so that"..... reads awkwardly
What did he travel to Jerusalem for before the Yom Kippur War broke out?
Add a comma after "In Germany"
Cardinal
Not sure "unique" from "unique devotion" is a neutral description
"On the death of Pope John Paul II" → "After Pope John Paul II died", also add the date of Paul's funeral
Add a comma after "In the National Catholic Reporter"
Relations with Argentine governments
I still don't know why Francis is listed by last name in this section
Dirty War
"clairified" from "It was clarified" should be revealed
Fernando de la Rúa
A rather short section, should be expanded or merged per MOS:PARAGRAPHS
Papacy
"Elected at the age of 76, Francis is reported to be in good health"..... was (this was from two years ago), "healthy" would be better than "in good health", and I'd clarify that this report came from when he was elected back in March 2013
The "Papal documents", "Clerical titles", and "Consistories" sections are all rather short and should also be expanded or merged with other sections per MOS:PARAGRAPHS
Teachings
Homosexuality
"practice" and "person" shouldn't be italicized, even if used for emphasis or clarity
Public image
The last two paragraphs should be merged per MOS:PARAGRAPHS
I would scrap this section altogether. The ancestors listed aren't even sourced or discussed within the article.
Overall
Well-written?
Prose quality: Could be better
Manual of Style compliance: Many instances going against MOS:PARAGRAPHS as well as italics issues
Verifiable?
Reference layout: Many problems with citation style (including HARVref error)
Reliable sources: A number of subpar references
No original research: In addition to an unsourced section, dead links and HARVref errors make content more difficult to verify
Broad in coverage?
Major aspects: Mostly good, but there are missing bits
Focused: Some parts I feel aren't necessary
Neutral?: Not entirely
Stable?: All good
Illustrated, if possible, by images?
Appropriate licensing: No copyright concerns
Relevance and captioning: Close, but not exactly
Pass or Fail?: Sorry for the delay, but after much thought and analysis, I'm failing this as there are too many layout and reference problems. Better luck next time.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
17:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)reply