Talk:Benedict Joseph Fenwick/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Babegriev (talk · contribs) 23:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hi Contributors! I will be reviewing this article within the week and look forward to reading it. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page with any concerns. Thanks! Babegriev (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Assessment 22:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Overview

Sorry for the delay. Most suggestions are minor, and overall this article is in very good shape. Article is coherently structured and well-written for a wide range of audiences. The article is formatted with the style of other comparable bishopric and clergy-related articles, integrates appropriate infoboxes and templates, and is effectively illustrated.

Lead Section

Effective summarization. Well written and eloquent.

Please consider removing the period after Cathedral in: "original St. Patrick's Cathedral. and later as".

Done. Ergo Sum 03:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life

"His cousin was Bishop Edward Fenwick." is an abrupt end to that paragraph. Perhaps combining it with the preceding sentence, as they both pertain to his family's involvement as clergy. Alternatively, consider including a brief notation of what makes Edward Fenwick notable, as done with Enoch.

Done. Ergo Sum 04:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the section, "He and his brother were among the first six..." implies that they were among the first six overall restored jesuit novices. Please confirm that this is correct, as the Lord source is unclear as to whether they were among the first 6 overall, and happened to be at Georgetown, or if they were among the first 6 Georgetown novices. Perhaps a bit of context for a slightly broader audience would be appreciated.

Clarified. Ergo Sum 04:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry in New York

- "...Jesuits in the United States could not sustain..." -- was this meant to be "in the United States to sustain...'" or "in the United States and could not...?"

Yes, clarified. Ergo Sum 04:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikilink to Pastor can be removed from the start of the last paragraph in this section, given the context provided herein.

I link it because pastor does have a precise meaning within Catholic canon law that some other Christian denominations tend to use more loosely. The pastor article explains this. Ergo Sum 04:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- "Fenwick succeeded him as pastor of St. Peter's Church as well." -- It might be helpful to make it more clear that Fenewick was responsible for both St. Peter's and St. Patrick's simultaneously. The timeline of this paragraph is somewhat unclear.

Rephrased that part of the paragraph so that it should be clearer. Ergo Sum 04:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- "and John Power would become the next pastor of Old St. Peter's in 1825" -- Did you mean St. Patrick's? Perhaps also include a note on the vacancy noted in in the succession box.

Corrected. Ergo Sum 04:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop of Boston

- "priests in the diocese had increased to 24 by this time" -- By what time?

Added year. Ergo Sum 04:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Link to First Provincial Council of Baltimore can be directed to Provincial Councils of Baltimore#First Provincial Council for specificity.

I made the redirect itself more specific. Ergo Sum 04:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- "and chose as the name of the new school the College of the Holy Cross, in honor of the original Boston cathedral" -- Consider rewording. Along the lines of "and named the new school the College of the Holy Cross, in honor...". Simpler would probably be better here.

Done. Ergo Sum 04:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- ""Memoirs to Serve for the Future Ecclesiastical History of the Diocess of Boston." However, this was never published during his lifetime." -- Combine to single sentence. 2nd sentence is a dependent clause.

Done. Ergo Sum 04:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- "An effigy of Bishop Fenwick" -- consider a wikilink to effigy.

Done. Ergo Sum 04:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Reviewer Comments: n.a. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Reviewer Comments: Unremarkable. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): Reviewer Comments: Unremarkable. b (citations to reliable sources): Reviewer Comments: Citations are credible, appropriately formatted, and plentiful. c (OR): Reviewer Comments: There is no evidence of Original Research per WP:OR d (copyvio and plagiarism): Reviewer Comments: No evidence of WP:COPYVIO or plagiarism. Low similarity per Earwig's. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Reviewer Comments: Provides accurate and verifiable biographical information, and illustrates a narrative of legacy. b (focused): Reviewer Comments: All content is relevant to the subject of the article. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Reviewer Comments: While this article is not of controversial nature, the article is written from an unbiased and neutral POV. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Reviewer Comments: Article is stable, no notable edit wars. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Reviewer Comments: All images contain copyright tags, and non-free images contain appropriate rationales. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Reviewer Comments: All images have suitable caption.
Overall: Pass/Fail: Reviewer Comments: 04:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
· · ·

Babegriev (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Babegriev. I believe I've addressed all your comments. Ergo Sum 04:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Nicely written article! Babegriev (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.