Talk:Ignace Bourget/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Two found, one fixed. I could not resolve Joseph Michaud as none of the three possible targets fits. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 *  and in 1837 was named co-adjutor bishop of the newly created bishopric of Montreal. I think the term "co-adjutor" needs explanation here.
 * he was conferred minor orders by Joseph-Octave Plessis, Archbishop of Quebec,  "he was conferred" is ungrammatical.
 * completed on September 22, 1825 and consecrated by Archbishop Plessis, and Bourget was named chaplain. This role gave him responsibility for organising the pastoral ministry of St-Jacques Abbreviations are not acceptable, should be "Saint-Jacques"
 * In June/July 1838 and in May–July 1939, Bourget toured the bishopric, visiting around 30 parishes Consistency, use a dash rather than a slash.
 *  with the result of a new hospital servicing the Saint-Hyacinthe area.  "result of"?
 * to staff the schools, missions and parishes occasioned by Canada's burgeoning population. "occasioned by"?
 * The invitation was accepted and the next several years saw an influx of religious congregations into Montreal, "the next several years"?
 * On June 12, 1844, the ecclesiastical province of Quebec was erected by papal bull, "erected by"?
 * On May 1, 1845, Bourget directed Rosalie Cadron-Jetté, a widow of his St-Jacques congregation, can't be a widow of a congregation.
 * I would you to go through this line-by-line to render into good plain English, with unfamiliar words, especially clerical ones, explained. Wikilinking alone is not enough.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References appear Ok, RS, no evidence of OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Possibly a little too much detail in this article. Consider summary style rather than over detailed accounts.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Although opponents, both religioyus and secular are mentioned, the artcile seems to very much written from the subject's point of view. This may be caused by over-reliance on two sources, Philippe (2000) & Bruchési (1913).
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * Licensed and captioned
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for the points above to be addressed
 * Seven days have passed, the only editing has been to add a redlink. As the issues raised have not been addressed, I shall not be listing.  Please renominate when these issues have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seven days have passed, the only editing has been to add a redlink. As the issues raised have not been addressed, I shall not be listing.  Please renominate when these issues have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)