Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Matthews (priest)/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2018 [1].

William Matthews (priest)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article was the first Catholic priest born in British America. He became an influential figure in 19th-century Washington, D.C. and played a significant role in the establishment of Catholicism there. This article has undergone significant revision and honing, including two FACs, a GAN, a peer review, and a GCE copyedit. The last FAC failed due to lack of continued comments. Thank you in advance for any and all input. Ergo Sum 03:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

[edit]
  • Support - Excellently written and researched article. The issue with the last nomination, which was around page numbers for the Durkin book, is now resolved, and the article has improved in several other ways in the interm thanks to the tireless Ergo Sum. Disclosure, I have closely followed this articles progression. Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Tony1

[edit]

1a: It's not bad.

  • Lead: three alsos. The first is necessary. The second and third should be dumped.
  • "Matthews was the first ordained Catholic priest born in British America and the fifth Catholic priest in the United States." Here's a place you might insert a comma, to stop the momentary query over whether he was born in British American and within it somewhere specific. Instead we realise in reverse that it's a quite new proposition.
  • "in the small village of Port Tobacco in Charles County, located in the Maryland Colony of British America." Why not: "in the small village of Port Tobacco in Charles County in the Maryland Colony of British America."?
  • The agency metaphor might be thought rather precious by some readers: "Matthews' matrilineal ancestry traces its origins to the noble O'Neills of Ireland." Then, the hated "thus". The explicit causality doesn't quite add up. Because his folds were "noble" in Ireland automatically means they were a "prominent, established" family in Maryland?
  • "he witnessed British troops burn part of his family's estate"—it's grammatical, but why not "burning". Supports the vividness of being a witness.
  • Me, I'd put a comma after "Jesuits" to stop the momentary query over whether they became Jesuits and something else too. Seems to work with the sentence size and rhythm.
  • "Although he was a student at St. Mary's Seminary, Matthews often served as a professor of English at Georgetown College because the professors and seminarians at St. Mary's were asked by Bishop John Carroll to assist with the teaching duties of the Jesuits at Georgetown." Opening is ambiguous. You mean though (I prefer the US "though") he was just a student, or though he studied at the Seminary? This was an informal swapping arrangement, was it? "often served as a professor" sounds rather grand. And occasional professor? Check the source: perhaps he just filled in for them when necessary, taking a few classes.

That's down to the end of "Early life". Perhaps an audit of the rest by you? Tip: print it out and go somewhere different with a pen. Tony (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: I've incorporated your suggestions. For your last bullet point, the source does, in fact, use the term "professor." However, in this instance, instructor works just as well. I believe I've reworded the sentence to dispel any confusion. I'll go through the article to see if there are any other unclear phrasings, though the last time I checked, nothing stuck out to me. Ergo Sum 03:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: I've gone through and copyedited the rest of the article. It should read more clearly now. Would you care to go through and see if you spot anything else? Ergo Sum 04:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: Did you have a moment to give the article another look? Ergo Sum 04:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Returning to his alma mater, Matthews received a professorship in rhetoric at Georgetown in 1796."—it's unusual, the "received". Maybe, but why not plain "took up"? Or "accepted", since "took" is in the subsequent sentence.
  • "On December 23, 1798, he took his minor orders. He was strongly attracted to the Jesuits because of his uncle Ignatius Matthews' membership." I'm being fussy, but do check that the source, in its context using your expertise, is really presenting a good case for causality here ... or was it lazy wrting by John Shae? Not thrilled with the clunky grammar (uncle ... membership) ... and we have to pause to think "ah, membership of the Jesuits, I guess it means".
  • "British America" is linked in the lead and in the infobox and in "Early life". Do we really need yet another one?
  • "Matthews spoke with General Robert Ross and persuaded him not to destroy the church." There was no cell-phone texting in those days. Nor emailing. Can't it be "Matthews persuaded ..."?
    • Reducing the phrase to your suggested one would not quite convey the same idea. One can persuade another without speaking with them, especially in this situation. One could gesture, place obstacles, board up the church, or take any number of other hypothetical measures that are different from speaking to persuade. Ergo Sum 02:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Matthews gestured and persuaded with General Robert Ross not to destroy the church." Really? I'm surprised you didn't argue that he might have persuaded Ross in writing, which is an alternative slightly less unlikely. One of the problems with the current wording is that there are two clauses, two actions: speaking, and then persuading. But you meant them as one action, right? So it's clumsy at the moment. I don't know the context as explained in the source, but I'm sure the wording is better than this. Tony (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try not to scratch the "also" itch unless it adds something: "He also performed". AND there's yet another one soon after. The readers will understand that you're listing things. They're cool about it. Does "pipe organ" really need a link?
  • Repetitions and possible fluff: "During his time as pastor, Matthews purchased a pipe organ for the church from an Episcopal church in Dumfries, Virginia; it is believed to have been the first organ in the District of Columbia." Your para begins with "During his tenure as pastor,". I let that one go; but not twice, please. "As pastor, ...". "...Virginia – probably the first ...".
  • "... with establishing the second Catholic parish in Washington, St. Peter's Church." Consider using a colon, not a comma. Or "to be named".
  • "While construction started on a building for the church"—Seems weird. "Matthews was to ensure the project was brought under control and completed." Now I'm confused. Establishing a parish and building the church: when and when, name and name. This is a messy section. This is also wavering and confusing: "Matthews did not want St. Peter's Church to be governed by lay trustees because the issue of trusteeism was still active in the United States.[29] He was opposed to the control of church properties by lay trustees, which resulted in his later selection for an ecclesiastical mission in Philadelphia. The church was eventually completed in 1821." Huh?

"to be able to use the"—remove three words. Comma before "but", I think.

It's long and I'm tired. I find lots of wording that needs tightening up, and worse, clarifying. Tony (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: I've gone ahead and made those changes. I do wonder, however, whether these are issues of syntactic propriety or personal preference. The phraseology didn't seem faulty to the copy editor who recently reviewed the article, to Ceoil, or to myself (though, admittedly, I am biased). Ergo Sum 02:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, probably better that you don't cast aspersions on others here. "syntactic propriety"—too intellectual for me to understand. I've provided reasons for every point: is there something that's not crystal clear? Tony (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: I don't mean to cast aspersions at all or do anything of the sort. I very much appreciate your comments. I was merely suggesting that reasonable people might have different opinions of what is concise, clear writing without either being incorrect with respect to the rules of grammar and syntax. Do you not agree? Ergo Sum 13:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, English-speakers usually do agree on proposed improvements to a text—despite the big, baggy nature of the language and its spread around the planet. I'm interested to know where you think my criticisms/suggestions wouldn't improve the clarity and simplicity of the text. And I think there's a misunderstanding in your comment: "might have different opinions of what is concise, clear writing without either being incorrect with respect to the rules of grammar and syntax". Most flabby, redundant wording is grammatical. Good style involves simplifying the grammar and tightening the flab. Tony (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken. Ergo Sum 00:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think a single object should be be fatal; Tony's comments are mostly correct, and have thus far been met. Note I am giving this another top to bottom revisit, based on his general suggestions. Ergo is of course free to revert at will. Ceoil (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I will do the same. Ergo Sum 15:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1 and Ceoil: I just went through and did another thorough copyedit of the article. I believe I've addressed any of the specific issues you've pointed out. From my perspective, it looks to be in good shape. Ergo Sum 20:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy:

  • "In the mid 1870s, to allow for construction of a new church, his body was exhumed along with the rest of those in the cemetery. It was transferred to a new coffin on October 31 that year, and it was observed that the body was remarkably intact." Hyphenate mid-. What is "that year"? The remarkably intact ... this assumes you've told us it was out of the ground for some time. I'm confused.
  • "Upon his death, Matthews bequeathed monies to St. Vincent's Asylum, enabling the construction of ...". So his ghost did the bequeathing (why not just remove the opening phrase)? And the wording leaves open whether his bequest for specifically for the construction, or whether it was given to the Asylum to do what it wanted with. "... Asylum for construction of" is one clear wording, if that's the intended meaning. the construction ... the construction: I'd dump the first "the". There's a surprising amount of detail about the death. Why?

And:

  • "Matthews had a particularly strong spiritual commitment, and he was especially fond of"—kill one word.
  • "For this reason, ..." and "The following year, ..."—you don't have to insert a comma after such short opening phrases. But you can. Judge by the rhythm, bumpiness, clarity.

Overall, it's reasonable. I won't oppose. But in my view it was underprepared for nomination. Tony (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: Thanks for the comments. I've made the changes you suggest. As for the relationship between his bequest and the construction, the source doesn't make clear the causality, so I've left the wording as is. Do you feel comfortable enough to support the nomination or would you rather not vote? Ergo Sum 15:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose. Tony (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Display name 99

[edit]

Priesthood

  • Can we add more detail on his time as a professor of rhetoric? I'd like to make the first few sentences a separate section if possible and I want to see if we can put more information there. It's a little bit short right now for a FA nominee. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I re-read the source and looked for others, but I don't find any more detail on his professorship. If the Durkin book doesn't go into detail, it's unlikely that any source would. Ergo Sum 19:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick's Church

I was referring to the original St. Patrick's building. After looking at it again I think I see the meaning clearer now, but it would be nice to know why he decided to replace the original building at St. Patrick's. Display name 99 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reason in the Warner book and added it to the relevant area; the original church was too modest. Ergo Sum 05:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have numbers for baptisms, conversions, etc? Is there any more detail on the slave purchase that can be added? Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find any sources that concretize the numbers. They all tend to say "a lot". As for the slave purchase, that's really all that it says in the Durkin book. I'd be surprised if any such records exist going into detail on these things. Ergo Sum 19:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's Church

Recovery of Ann Mattingly

Georgetown College

Could we say "member of the Board of Directors?" Display name 99 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fixed. Ergo Sum 04:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just another note: I'm not trying to be rude, but why is there so little information available on him? This is easily the shortest FA nominee that I've ever involved with, and I'm wondering why my questions (which seem fairly basic) are so difficult to answer. Display name 99 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Display name 99: I don't find it rude; it's a legitimate question. I don't know if I would agree that there's little information on him. Considering that he lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in what was then a small, backwater city and that he wasn't a major political figure or bishop, I'd say there's actually a surprising amount of information that has been preserved about his life. While there very well may be other primary information out there, pretty much anything of significance that has been stated in secondary sources about Matthews has been included in the article. Answers to your questions might just have been lost to history. Also, I'm not too familiar with the typical length of FAs, but the article is currently longer than today's TFA (70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)). Ergo Sum 04:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. This article has 26 kB or 4,332 words. That one has 31 kB or 5,018 words. Display name 99 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. Display name 99 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: Thank you. Your comments have been helpful. Do you have any opinion on whether this FAC should go forward? Ergo Sum 04:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • "became influential in the formation of Catholicism in Washington, D.C" - not entirely sure "formation of Catholicism" actually means anything; maybe establishment?
  • "and oversaw the continuity of the school during suppression and financial insecurity." - religious suppression I assume - implied but still probably worth adding that adjective
  • "Matthews received from his parents a sizable inheritance that he drew from throughout his life for the advancement of the Church.[5]" - not a fan of this sort of pretentious phrasing... why not just avoid the inversion and say "From his parents, Matthews received a sizable..."
  • "This made him one of the last young Americans to be sent to the English school at Liége.[5] " - presumably the students there were all relatively young? why is that detail worth mentioning?
  • "While a student at Georgetown in 1796, he was chosen to be the first to greet President George Washington upon his visit to the college.[8] " - "the first" among whom? Among the student body? Any idea why?
  • "He was not an especially successful professor, as his lectures were described as monotonous.[12] " - that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't a "successful" professor IMO... rephrase? What does the source actually describe?
    • The source does describe him as "not successful." However, in context, it seems to be a bit of editorializing by the author, since the only evidence provided is the monotony. So, I've removed the successful part. Ergo Sum 20:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Matthews became a subdeacon on August 22, 1799, and was ordained as a transitional deacon on March 26, 1800.[13]" - don't need a comma before "and was"
  • "This new St. Patrick's was consecrated by Archbishop John Carroll and the mass was concelebrated by Leonard Neale.[8]" - I'd add a comma before "and the mass"
  • "and served as a liaison between the bishop and Catholic institutions and priests in Washington." - I'd add "he" between "and" and "served", or I'd lose the comma before "and served"
  • "This would have provided some weightiness to Maréchal's petitions but it is unclear whether he ever made use of this arrangement.[34]" - comma before "but it is unclear"
  • "Matthews responded by criticizing the priests who exaggerated the story, but described the event to the National Intelligencer as a miracle.[35]" - same note as above; I'd add "he" or lose the comma
  • "Matthews' relationship with Anthony Kohlmann, a subsequent president of Georgetown, was particularly difficult.[39]" - elaborate... how so?
  • "The wedding took place on November 29, 1832 at the White House,[77] and signified the first Catholic ceremony in the history of the White House.[78] " - I would remove the comma before "and signified"
  • Stylistically, I think any instance where the refs are not in ascending order (ie. [81][26] instead of [26][81]) should be fixed

Happy to support once my comments are addressed. This is a well-written article. ceranthor 16:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: Thank you for your comments. They were very helpful. With the exception of two (which concerned the same issue of commas), I've implemented them. Ergo Sum 00:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ceranthor 12:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Looks like we need a source review for reliability and formatting, unless I've missed something -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Can you explain why those are necessary? It seems that the reservations above have been addressed. Ergo Sum 20:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A check that the references are reliable and that the citations and sources are formatting consistently and correctly is a requirement of all FACs -- again, if a reviewer has done that and I missed it above, feel free to point it out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Must that be done by a reviewer, or can that be done by the nominator? Ergo Sum 00:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's done by someone independent, i.e. a reviewer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Will list it. Ergo Sum 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: It appears a source review is now complete. Ergo Sum 20:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I won't necessarily hold up promotion over this, several duplinks in the article need rationalising -- you can use this script to highlight them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about citation format

[edit]

@Seraphim System, Ceoil, Display name 99, and Ceranthor: I recently reorganized the references section by moving all books and journal articles to the bibliography section, to make the citations section cleaner and easier to read. This leaves only short citations and citations using {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} in the citations section. I am not aware of any policy regarding segregation of full- and short-form citations. This was also discussed in this article's last FAC nomination. However, for the sake of streamlining citations, I am wondering whether it might be better to move all full-form citations to the bibliography section, leaving only short-form citations in the citations section. Any thoughts? Ergo Sum 03:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After I quick spotcheck I this looks pretty good. I'm not sure how moving the long form citations should be done but the citations sections of my FAs have always been a mix of mostly Harvard citations and a few citations in the cite web form to different webpages. Yours is basically the same. So like I said, after a quick spot check it definitely looks to be FA quality. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: The only reason I ask is because if there are some long-form citations in the Citations section, then technically the Bibliography doesn't list ALL the works cited. I'm not sure if the norm on Wikipedia is to consider a bibliography a listing of all printed works cited (the traditional way) or all works cited no matter their medium (the more modern way). Ergo Sum 05:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I've always done it the same way as you on my nominees and it was fine. Display name 99 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Sounds good. Ergo Sum 18:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I usually go with "Sources" (used) and "further reading" (not used). To me, bibliography implies exhaustiveness. "Further reading" brings issues however, for larger scope articles it is redundant, for smaller it may indicate lack of comprehensiveness. This is not good enough. Ceoil (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I don't have a strong preference for sources vs. bibliography. However, by definition, a bibliography is just a list of all the sources used in creating a work. Ergo Sum 02:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

[edit]

In-lines and full references all formatted correctly. Spot checks to follow.

  • Cruz 1991 needs a pg number as is a book
  • The Devitt 1912 journal also, but i see the problem, the reproducing source doesn't give the pg nrs. Is "New Advent" a RS? I see "Copyright © 2017 by Kevin Knight" at the foot of the page, and its front page is highly political and partisan; is this essentially a blog? I am extremely weary of keeping this, to the point of opposing.
    • I don't know anything about the other content on New Advent, but the portion that is referenced is just a translation of The Catholic Encyclopedia, which was a reputable early 20th-century encyclopedia. I could try to track down other websites that also provide free access to the encyclopedia, but I don't really see why that's necessary. Ergo Sum 00:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its home page carries the banner "Trump administration to strengthen religious liberty rules on birth control, homosexuality". Can we find a better publisher, one more specialised in church history. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll say this again, for things like "JSTOR 40066838 – via JSTOR." you have already said "JSTOR", no need to say "from..."
  • Why "Washington, D.C" & later "City of Washington, D.C"
    • Where are you talking about? Footnote [c] explains why "City of Washington" is used in certain places, since at the time there was a distinction between the District of Columbia and the City of Washington, which is no longer made. Ergo Sum 00:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but you are citing in 2018. We dont say: Dublin (in yesterdays British Kingdom). Any region could say similar; distinguishing here seems pointless. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, either style is perfectly acceptable to today refer to Washington, D.C. I rephrased one use to be extra clear. The remaining references to "City of Washington" refer to the historical portion of Washington, D.C. that was once known as the City of Washington. The distinction is quite relevant, since there was no such thing as a unified District of Columbia at the time Matthews lived. His church was in the City of Washington, the university was in Georgetown; while today they are part of the same city, they were not at the time. For an analogy, see London vs. City of London. Ergo Sum 02:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for explanation. Sorry to be so slow, but happy now. Ceoil (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To note a lot of the sources are 19th c, which is to be expected. That being said, they should only be used to establish fact, and any opinion is likely highly dated and should be fully attributed AND in quotes.

Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is just making a general point, and covering off, in case it comes up in another source review. I dont see evidence. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Ergo Sum 01:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo, having thought more about this, I really dont like mixing sources used and not used in a general biblo section - it gives the impression that the article has wider breath of research than it might actually have. Have moved D'Arcy (1861) [And for that ref, what is the value of [2], if its not in the in-lines], can you look at the others and untangle pls. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: I'm not quite sure what you mean. The William D'Arcy Haley book is referenced inline (which I understood to mean it should always go in the bibliography section). There are no cites in the References section that do not correspond to an inline reference. Ergo Sum 00:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, my searching in the in-lines was for D'Arcy. Doh! Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I see. I believe I have addressed all of your above concerns. Ergo Sum 01:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will do some spot checks shortly. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Am finding use of google snippets eg. Not a good sign, unless you have the actual book, in which case why are you linking to rather unhelpful snippets. A worry is that the article is built from weaker sources, seemingly reinforced by easy to find snippets. Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Can you explain what you mean by snippets? Anything that I've added to the article was directly taken from either a physical book or a book found online (and referenced accordingly). Ergo Sum 02:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ergo, by snippets I mean that for me, the google books link renders as scan of a tiny section of the page with only a few words visible. I suppose it comes down to citation style; I know you are highly diligent in research, but by linking to snippet views you are undermining this position. I would remove all the GB links all together. Ceoil (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and forgot to say - spot checks done, and no issues found. I take Ergo's word that he/she has the actual books or access to the full on line text, so the source review is closed, except for "Advent" and the linking thing, which may be viewed as a matter of style, but would urge him/her to address. Ceoil (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Thanks for the thorough review. As for the Google Books links, I only have them in there as convenience links. The immediate area of the book that is linked to is not the totality of the book consulted, just the part that is most immediately relevant to the associated inline short cite. Ergo Sum 15:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_Matthews_(priest)/archive3&oldid=866378449"