Talk:Edward V. Boursaud/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: M4V3R1CK32 (talk · contribs) 19:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Generally good. I conducted a copy edit of the article fixing a handful of spelling and grammar issues. I don't think is disqualifying, but you might consider moving that Boursaud was president of BC to the first or second sentence of the lead, as that is arguably his biggest claim to notability.

Done. Ergo Sum 23:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Point b) is particularly interesting here. Most of the publications cited in this article are produced by Boston College or are otherwise owned/operated by the Jesuits. I think an argument could be made that these publications are not independent and thus their degree of reliability is lessened; however, I don't think that the degree to which the reliability is lessened is significant enough to fail this GAN on those grounds. Nevertheless, something I wanted to point out for other reviewers.

Yes, many, but not all, sources of the sources are published by Jesuit institutions. I think it's important to note that they are not all the same institution and each has its own independent editorial control. Also, none of them is used to cite anything controversial. They all are used to just recount basic biographical facts. The sources I've used also have never been a problem in other FA or GA nominations of biographical articles about Jesuits. Ergo Sum 23:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do! I've got no problem with using them either, just wanted to note the connection. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaustively cited. Well done.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
a) The article covers all major aspects of Boursaud's life.

b) Generally good at keeping things concise. The main place I see an issue is in the Early life section, where several sentences are devoted to Boursaud's parents. The sentence about the circumstances of their marriage, for instance, is wholly unrelated to the article subject and should be cut. Reworking that initial paragraph a bit to keep the focus on the article subject throughout will help. I would cut most of it and keep the focus on Boursaud.

It's not too uncommon for biography articles to briefly discuss the subject's family, since it gives context to the subject's upbringing and circumstances of birth. Here, for example, it tells the reader what Boursaud's ethnic background was and the social status of his family. True, this is not a terribly long article, but the family paragraph is rather short here. Ergo Sum 23:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: that's a fair point. In my mind, there is one sentence that is unnecessary and two that have bits that are unnecessary. There's also a structure issue that makes that paragraph confusing, and trimming it back would solve the issue.

The two were married in New York City by Archbishop John Hughes, who was a friend of Boursaud's father.
- This sentence is not related to Boursaud, and does not strike me as encyclopedic information.
  - I trimmed this down substantially. Ergo Sum 01:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boursaud's father, Augustin, was born in Bourdeaux, France, and emigrated to New York at the age of thirty.
- Is it necessary to specify that Augustin was born in Bourdeaux, or that he was 30 when he emigrated? Do those specifics help readers understand Boursaud better? I'm not sure that they do. Would basics about Augustin being a French immigrant better suit this article about his son? Personally, I think they would, but that sentence isn't going to hold this article back from being a GA.
  - I don't think these contextual are facts too uncommon in biography articles. For example, the age of Boursaud's father says something about his immigration circumstances. Unlike many immigrants moving to New York at that time, he was on the older side. Likewise, the region of his father's birth is important, especially at that time, when regions of France (and Europe generally) were much more defining features of a person's background than their nationality. Ergo Sum 01:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While Boursaud's mother was visiting New York City (Brooklyn was then a separate city), she gave birth to Boursaud.
- This helps explain the circumstances of his birth, but I don't think the parenthetical about Brooklyn is necessary. Personally, I'm not sure that this level of detail about his birth is necessary at all, but this sentence isn't going to hold this article back from being a GA in my mind.
  - I think it makes for an interest fact that he was not born in the city of his parents' residence, but instead was born by happenstance in New York City. Ergo Sum 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boursaud's parents moved to Baltimore, Maryland, where his father ran a large, private, boarding school and day school for 10 years. They then moved to Brooklyn in 1850, where his father would operate his school for another 18 years. While Boursaud's mother was visiting New York City (Brooklyn was then a separate city), she gave birth to Boursaud.
- The way it's currently structured, it makes it sound like Boursaud was born in 1850, not 1840, but we know that isn't true. Reorganizing things a bit here to clarify a) when Boursaud was born and b) when the family moved to Baltimore, France, and back to NYC would help a ton. Let me know what you think and ping me if you want me to take another look! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I clarified the timeline now. Ergo Sum 01:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also question the relevance of the sentence referencing a future cardinal being one of his students. That feels more like a bit of trivia to me, and I am not sure it's encyclopedic content.

I think it's a bit borderline, but I've removed it. Ergo Sum 00:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Excellent work keeping content focused on facts and avoiding the use of peacock terms and weasel words.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No significant edits made since October 2022; edits are primarily copy edits, categories, etc.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The infobox image used would normally be a good one; however, there are potential copyright issues that need to be cleaned up before it can be used. I've removed the image for the time being.

Specifically, the image is not properly licensed on Wikimedia Commons and has been tagged as such. The original image of Boursaud would be in the public domain, as it was produced in 1884; however, this image is a digital recreation created in 2013 by a private entity (Boston College). It is technically a separate work, and as such BC may actually hold a copyright for the digital image. Free use might apply, but if it does it should be uploaded to Wikipedia, not Commons. Ergo Sum please update the license in Commons to ensure there are no copyright violations related to that image. That may involve contacting the VRT.

I've update the Commons image with a corrected license template and restored the image to the infobox. Ergo Sum 00:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: Very nice work! These sources were no doubt challenging to work with. The big issues are the Early life section and the image. If you fix those this is easily a GA.
Pass/Fail:

@M4V3R1CK32: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 00:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@M4V3R1CK32: Apologies for the delay in responding to your comments. Ergo Sum 01:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of those are perfectly fair responses, and your clarification makes sense to me! Promoting to GA! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2023 (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.