20 days! They should make every pope last that long :) Going to try and be very picky given the article's length
maybe "surrounding the papal capital of Rome" in the lead? Assuming that's an important detail—readers may assume the Vatican was always the capital, and in any case because it was the capital is probably why he did it. Might be worth adding to the body: "and concern for the people of Rome, the papal capital"
"deduced from four lines of the Liber Pontificalis"–this would be the perfect place to have a note that gives page numbers to a publication with these four lines in English, though having a place to find both the Latin and English would be great too!
I am unsure if any editions I am able to locate are the most reliable/high-quality ones out there. Thus, I will tentatively leave it be, but if you or someone else at FA can guide me towards one, I will be happy to include it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we know he was alive during the reign of Pope Honorius I, surely that gives us a better idea of when he was born, or at least, when he was "born before" ?
I apologize if the wording is unclear: it is not known is Sisinnius was alive during the reign of Honorius I; I was just making a statement about monetary donations to the papacy over the span of a few centuries. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would have a word or two on what Corsica is so readers don't have to click the link
Good point, but I would rather not. As Pbritti said, "A notable case study in the quality of this is article is the reference of Sisinnius consecrating a bishop: was this a bishop of Corsica (as in McBrien) or a bishop for Corsica (as in Kelly & Walsh and this article). The more accurate phrasing is "for", as there wasn't a singular diocese encompassing Corsica during Sisinnius's time". Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could possibly give the date Pope Constantine was elected to show if the transition/interregnum was brief or slow
You have a lot of ISBN 10s–any particularly reason? Generally best to use ISBN 13, although there are exceptions for older publications that were initially released with only 10s, but I doubt any of these were except perhaps the Richards. If you decide to convert them, the easiest way is the hyphenator (and then checking the box below) or the ISBN converter for individual ones
Based on my experience at FA, it is generally acceptable either way; since ISBN-10s were the only ISBN types in use at the time of the publication of most (if not all) the sources here, I think leaving it as is would be alright. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Either way, ISBN 13s weren't introduced till the mid 2000s (more recent than I thought), so with that logic Kelly and McBrien should also use ISBN 10s instead of the 13s they currently use. I will admit that this issue is terribly minor :) Aza24 (talk)03:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: I believe all issues have either been resolved or responded to. Again, thank you for reviewing, and let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve this article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
