Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Conwell/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 [1].

Henry Conwell

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Henry Conwell, the second Catholic bishop of Philadelphia. He began his episcopate at an advanced age and spent much of his tenure fighting with lay trustees of one of his parishes. He was recalled to Rome, stripped of most of his powers, and lived out his days as bishop in name only. I hope his story proves an interesting read. Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Support just a few things

You might want to make it clear he was born in Ulster and thus not in present-day Ireland (Irish Free State)
"He was appointed parish priest of Dungannon in 1792 or 1793 and Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Armagh in 1794.[1][5] After the death of Archbishop Richard O'Reilly in 1818, Conwell served as acting Archbishop". Hm. Long time, no see? (no action required)
I'd make clearer how few Catholics there were in the US at the time, especially outside Maryland.
"Hogan quickly ingratiated himself with the board of trustees, siding with them in their dispute with the other clergy" Was the board made up of clergy? Some clarification so we know the situation we're dealing with.
"that neither Conwell nor anyone had the right to dictate the location of his residence." maybe "that neither Conwell nor anyone else had the right to say where he should live."
"In the meantime, Conwell recalled a Dominican friar, William Vincent Harold, whom his predecessor had dismissed." I'd make it clearer this was as interim priest at St. Mary's, or whatever the proper term is.

Very interesting and well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I've clarified these where I could. There is very little information on his early life, so not much I can add there. I can't find anything that says exactly what Harold did when he returned except assist Conwell. I'll look some more to see where he said mass, if anywhere, but Hogan was still at St. Mary's at this point, despite his excommunication, so it almost certainly wasn't there. There were three more downtown churches, so it could have been any of them. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dank, for the edits and for the support. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

"his divide with Conwell deepened": I think I know what's intended, but there's been no mention of a divide specifically between Hogan and Conwell up to this point, so I think this should be rephrased, particularly as this is followed by "When Conwell arrived", implying that the previous sentence describes events preceding Conwell's arrival.
- Yes, I got the tenses screwed up in editing. Should be fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Meanwhile, the schism continued": suggest dropping "meanwhile"; we just had "In the meantime" and I don't think the sense would be harmed.
- Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The trustees soon renounced the agreement, and when word reached the Holy See": word of the agreement or of the announcement by the trustees that they had renounced it? The wording makes it seem to be the latter, but the rest of the sentence seems to point to the former.
- It's the latter, they didn't approve of the agreement even before they knew the trustees were going to break it. Should be better worded now. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can the external link in note b be converted to a citation? And I think note c should have a citation too.
- Done and done. Thanks very much for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support; the fixes all look good. A well-crafted short article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Can we get ISBNs for the two 1976 books?
- They're two chapters in the same book, which seems not to have an ISBN. [2]
The Catholic Encyclopedia citation gives a date of 1908 in the recommended citation form at the bottom of the linked page; you have 1909.
- Fixed.
You have "Kendrick" in the source listing for Nolan, but "Kenrick" in the article.
- Fixed. (I must have been thinking of another Kendrick). --Coemgenus (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those fixes look good to me. Odd that there's no ISBN, but there were other small publishers well into the 1970s that omitted ISBNs; I guess the archdiocese was a little behind the times. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.