Jump to content

Talk:Lawrence Sabatini

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLawrence Sabatini has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 15, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that American bishop Lawrence Sabatini travelled to Mexico to learn the language and culture because the Italian parishioners at his church in Chicago had been replaced by Hispanics?

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Bloom6132 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'll review this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - n
QPQ: Done.

Overall: ALT 1 reads better than the main hook, but it's still a little long. Can you simplify it a little more? Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: I've removed the district in Chicago and just listed the city. That trims ALT1 to 182 characters long. Hope that works. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloom6132:, still a little too long IMHO.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: It's under the 200 character limit required (always has been, in fact). I've now removed "predominantly" – that will be my final change to the hook. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloom6132: How about: ALT2:... that Lawrence Sabatini went to Mexico before becoming pastor of a church in Chicago, to learn the language and culture of the church's Hispanic parishioners?
I have removed a few details. This way, there will be more focus on the bishop's decision to learn language and culture, without any distracting details.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: (Sorry for not replying sooner – I was blocked for the past 24 hrs.) The thing I wanted to highlight in the hook was the demographic change (not language and culture). My comment above was made not because I'm unwilling to change the hook – it's that changing it any further will cause it to lose its meaning (and I'm afraid ALT2 does just that). I wanted the reader to link the bishop (whose Italian roots might be recognized through his surname) with the parish (also historically Italian) and the parishioners (who are now Hispanic). Hence his need to learn a new language and culture that he wouldn't have had to a decade or two before. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could come up with a new suggestion for a hook, but you don't strike me as someone who accommodates. I could be wrong though. So how do we go from here?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: "you don't strike me as someone who accommodates" – let's see, I struck out the main hook because you preferred ALT1, and I made 2 changes to simplify that hook at your request. None of which I had to do, because ALT1 (even in its original form) satisfies both the DYK rules and supplementary guidelines … —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3: ... that Lawrence Sabatini went to Mexico to learn the language and culture because the parishioners at his formerly Italian church in Chicago were now Hispanic?
How does this 157 character hook sound? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this: ... that Chicago pastor Lawrence Sabatini went to Mexico to learn the language and culture of new Hispanic parishioners? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that would not be accurate. Firstly, he's a retired bishop (a permanent title), and using "pastor" would imply that he's merely a priest. Moreover, I can't describe the Hispanic parishioners as "new", because the relevant source does not say when Hispanics became predominant. Only that they were when he got there. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset:, @Yoninah:, @Maile66: Would it be unreasonable if I asked for a new review of the hook? I'd like to get this on the MP next Friday (May 15), everything else seems to check out fine, and even the hook is under 200 characters (surely 182 characters doesn't qualify as "slightly under"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT3 works, and is sourced in the article. All other review issues were already covered and passed by the initial reviewer. I have struck ALT1 and ALT2. — Maile (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lawrence Sabatini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 04:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am looking forward to performing a review of this article. My approach is to review each section, make minor edits as I go along (links, punctuation, etc.) to save us both time and effort, and then assess the article against GA criteria. Feel free to revert edits that I make if you disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and infobox

[edit]
  • The intro looks good and is a well-written summary of his life.
  • If you are interested the 2nd and 3rd infoboxes could be embedded in the main infobox. I am happy to help with that if you like.
  • I prefer keeping them separate, but thanks for the offer of help. Of course, if there's consensus that those infoboxes should be embedded together, then I will kindly take you up on it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]

The section looks good. I made a few minor tweaks: a link to Northwest Side, formatted the brother's names like the sister's for consistency, and a minor edit. See the edits here. Feel free to revert or modify as you wish.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyteral ministry

[edit]

Looks good. I have no comments or suggestions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopal ministry

[edit]

Auxiliary bishop of Vancouver (1978–1982)

[edit]

Bishop of Kamloops (1982–1999)

[edit]
This was reverted as an inappropriate link.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in reading that article. Isn't it interesting that after all the years of attempting to indoctrinate people that one "sorry" is enough and any further discourse about the wrong doing is deemed unnecessary.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

[edit]

Published books

[edit]
  • It is not a big deal, but since he is listed as the author for all the books, his name could be removed from the book info, this would put the year towards the end of the citation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
  • The article is shorter than most good articles. That's fine if this is a good summary of his key milestones and noteworthy activities. I am going to see if there is some other content to consider for him.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Perhaps there is some useful content here:[reply]

GA criteria

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): }
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Comments

[edit]
  • The article is very well-written and is very close to passing as a GA article.
  • Please review this copy vio report for paraphrasing opportunities, such as major portions of sentences with content from the source, 4 or 5+ words from the source — that are not titles or quotations.
  • Gave it a thorough read-through. All of them seem to fall under WP:LIMITED. One that I could possibly change is "pastor of St. Stephen's Parish" → "parish priest of St. Stephen's Parish", but I prefer limiting word repetition (espc. words that are "close by"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above: It would be nice to round out the article a bit more on key milestones or outcomes from his work.
  • There are no images in the article. It would be nice to have an image of him that is in the public domain... or perhaps a church that he served or First Nations or other images that relate to his efforts.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried searching Flickr (no images available) and Google Images (4 images) – in fact, before I nominated for GAN. Hard to find any photos, unfortunately, let alone ones that are free use. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two thoughts, Bloom6132, about your comments here. I think that I could paraphrase some of the content. Do you mind if I try? (As an FYI, I rewrote the WP:Close paraphrasing page years ago. - The best example of limited number of ways of saying things is like "He died on x date"). And, I would like to see if I can find some images, perhaps of the churches that he served, etc. on commons. Do you mind if I try?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would not mind you trying re photos and paraphrasing. As for the latter, most of them are proper titles of organizations or positions he held, and those should not be changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bloom6132, Okay, I will get to it. Of course, I won't change his titles. I will give you a diff when I am done to show what was changed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the Cathedral image – I've changed it to a newer, higher quality one. Sorry I didn't see the parts earlier where you said images could also be of the churches, not just of him. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I was trying to pick one different than the article. That was my first choice, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bloom6132, I made 2 edits. There weren't other changes without creating other problems. See what you think, feel free to edit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is good and passes as a good article. Thanks so much for your work on it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson – Just added the last bit of info about his pilgrimages and trips. Hope that checks out alright. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I prefer the subject at the start of the sentence. But I reworded it so his birth place came before his birth date. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw your changes. The new content looks good. It wasn't going to change whether the article passed or failed, but are nice additions. I understand your points about the copyvio edits.
You are welcome for review. It was my pleasure.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

[edit]
  • It doesn't mention anywhere his reasons for retiring early. And it almost certainly wasn't for health reasons, because he did become pastor back in Chicago from 2000–2008. Perhaps he wanted to return home after being away as missionary for the entirety of his adult life. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vacancy

[edit]

In support of the alleged significance of a 2.5-year vacancy after Sabatini's reign in Kamloops, we would appreciate a reliable secondary source describing why it was extraordinary and why it deserves recognition in the succession box, whereas most interregna are unremarkable. Elizium23 (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Whose "we"? Speak for yourself. No one is claiming that a 2.5-year vacancy is "extraordinary" or remarkable. Nor is listing the factual timeline of events in the succession boxes any claim of such. The sede vacante article has a table for papal vacancy periods in excess of a year. Last time I checked, 2.5 years > 1 year. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Papal vacancies that long are extraordinary. Particular church vacancies are not Elizium23 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source? —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We asked you for a source for something in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't making a claim in the article that you falsely said I was. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, who said that "Papal vacancies that long are extraordinary. Particular church vacancies are not"? Apart from you, of course … —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lawrence_Sabatini&oldid=1210166240"