Talk:Louis de Barth/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Lead
 * "Louis de Barth, was an American Roman Catholic priest" - American is ambiguous here, since de Barth was born in France and lived there until he was 27. I would strike the word, since the following lines describe his place of birth, move, and locations of his priesthood.
 * Early life and priesthood
 * "settled by Germans, who were pleased to have one who spoke their own language as a priest" de Barth is French, and there's no mention of his education. The current phrasing gives me the impression that he spoke German only, but I suspect this is incorrect. I'm also unable to tell if the Germans spoke German only. I think this should be rewritten (or a sentence added elsewhere) to make it clear de Barth was multilingual. Maybe "who were pleased to have a priest who was able to speak their native language"? Argento Surfer (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "which had previously under the jurisdiction " word missing here.
 * Fixed these in accordance with your suggestions. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Apostolic administrator
 * "ongoing disputes in Philadelphia" - this phrase currently links to Trusteeism, but that article doesn't mention Philadelphia. Is there perhaps a different article that could be linked? If not, I suggest moving the link to the word "lay trustees" and adding a brief description of the dispute.
 * There's not an article on Philadelphia's specific trusteeism dispute, unfortunately, but I revised the sentence and moved the link as you suggested. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "as one author later wrote" I know the citation is at the end of the sentence, but I think Kirlin's name and the year 1909 should be explicit in the prose.
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Philadelphia finally found" I think the word finally should be removed. I don't feel the background provided justifies it, since there in no comparison to how quickly other contemporary vacancies were filled or how many candidates were considered. Adding this context is an option, but I believe it may be beyond the scope of an article about de Barth.
 * OK, done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "He served there for several years and when the parish closed" - I suggest replacing and when with until.
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * no concern
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * no concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig results are weak. AGF for the print sources.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Nothing is obviously omitted
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No recent revisions. No sign of edit warring or vandalism.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Rationale provided
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The verb in the caption isn't conjugated correctly. "spent" perhaps? Since the caption doesn't directly describe the image, it should have WP:ALTTEXT as well.
 * Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass pending a few notes in Lead and Apostolic administrator sections.
 * I see you responded to the some of the new notes, but the one for the Lead appears to have been overlooked. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I missed that one. Fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass. Nice work! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)