Talk:Robert W. Brady/GA1

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

Reviewer: I'ma editor2022 (talk · contribs) 01:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Seems good for the most part, but in the Early Life section, it says "He then decided to enter religious life...", which should read, "He then decided to devote his life to Catholicism..." or something like that.
 * I think "enter religious life" is a pretty neutral way of phrasing it, and is one that I have used in quite a few GAs and FAs in the past. It's more prosaic than "devote his life to Catholicism" because in this case, "religious life" does not simply mean concern himself with religious things, but refers to religious life in a slightly more technical sense (i.e. religious vs. secular clergy). I've added a link for extra clarity.  Ergo Sum  16:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Seems to comply.
 * 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:
 * Dosen't comply with the layout style guidlines. They're short citations and full citations which, according to WP:CITESHORT, should have short citations seperated in a different heading name (possible titles are "Notes" and "Footnotes"). Please have a different heading instead of a sub-heading, it's incorrect for "References" to be divided into sub-headings.
 * I've never read the guidelines as requiring total separation of short citations from full citations because there are often full citations which are short and non-paginated (like websites), and therefore don't have corresponding short citations and are cited in full inline. Indeed, this is the practice on many of the most recently promoted FAs.  Ergo Sum  16:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ergo Sum
 * OK, I might of been a (bit?) picky about this. It's not a major issue. &#124;Remember, I'murmate, by I&#39;ma editor2022 21:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Sources such as Father Robert Wasson Brady , may not be so reliable according to WP:SOURCE and WP:RSSELF as, now I could be wrong, self-published? Furthermore, this seems like it is a primary source, which should rarely be used. However I may need a second opinion. Also, this source may be overly relied on, too.
 * I would submit that the Woodstock Letters source, here, is a secondary source, not a primary source. It just happens to be an old secondary source. In general, WL biographies are written posthumously (as appears to be the case here) and are not written as first-hand accounts of an event. Indeed, when they write about decedents' early years, they are written many decades post-facto. They also, generally, take a somewhat academic tone. I would also say the purpose for which it is used determines primary versus secondary. WL is not being used here to describe WL, but to describe something entirely different, so its "involvement" in the affairs of the subject (Brady) is diminished. Also, for what it's worth, I've used WL heavily in many biographies which are now FAs and even more which are GAs.  Ergo Sum  16:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is primary source from the sense that it has almost contemporaneous coverage, it does not has much hindsight view. No doubt that it has independent coverage. However, I am convinced that it can be used in GAs. So, no issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ergo Sum :
 * I woud say that it is a primary source becasue, like Kavyansh.Singh has said, it is from a contemporaneous view point and seems to be written in present tense, however you do have a valid point as the invovement is diminished and isn't really a issuse affecting the veritability of the article... &#124;Remember, I'murmate, by I&#39;ma editor2022 22:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Seems like it.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * Public Domain.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Captions look good and explains the material well
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * After discussing the review and the article (view comments above and below), I have come to the conclusion that it is acceptable for this article to pass.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Captions look good and explains the material well
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * After discussing the review and the article (view comments above and below), I have come to the conclusion that it is acceptable for this article to pass.

Second opinion
I was asked by the reviewer for a second-opinion on my talk page, which I am more than happy to give! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

So overall, I didn't see many issues. The article is a good one, well written. References are appropriately cited. Clarification is needed on a point about overuse of a primary source. Rest good! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Robert Brady was born on October 6, 1825, in — Mention the full name on the first instance in the prose
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  16:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Brady refused to continue paying $3,000 per year to — Suggesting to use
 * Inflated.  Ergo Sum  16:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Robert J. Fulton is over-red-linked
 * Fixed.  Ergo Sum  16:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the structure, I think I fixed it, and don't see a major issue there.
 * References:—
 * Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States — good enough for GA
 * College of the Holy Cross — OK
 * The Portal to Jesuit Studies — It appears that it is a part of the Boston College, so I'll say OK
 * Holy Trinity Catholic Church Bulletin — A publication of Holy Trinity Catholic Church (Washington, D.C.), so I don't see any issue using it.
 * A History of Boston College — If one of the author, Francis M. Crowley, is this (not this), then I am willing to accept that he is somewhat a subject-matter expert, so OK for this source.
 * "Father Robert Wasson Brady: A Sketch" — Published in 1891 ... so basically is is a periodical of the Society of Jesus. It is a primary and old source, but it is (I guess) the most comprehensive account of Robert W. Brady. Moreover, I don't think there is anything wrong in using it. But it may be an issue if we overuse it.
 * Jesuit Glossary: Guide to understanding the documents — I guess it is published by Roman Society of Jesus, and the author has contributed to quite few books. It is a tricky case, but I thinks for GA, it is fine.
 *  Thy Honored Name: A History of the College of the Holy Cross, 1843–1994 — good enough for GA
 * "Major Superiors in the Northern United States" — Fine


 * @Kavyansh.Singh:
 * What I meant about a overuse of primary sources was specifically the "Father Robert Wasson Brady: A Sketch" source, but sinced you proved that point isn't valid, you need not to worry! :) &#124;Remember, I'murmate, by I&#39;ma editor2022 22:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you also for the review (and for answering so quickly!) and your comprehensive second opinion (second review?!). — Remember, I'murmate — I&#39;ma editor2022 22:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reviews,. I've left a note about the Woodstock Letters source above.  Ergo Sum  16:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! This article seems like it complies with GA stardard so i'll give it a pass. — Remember, I'murmate — I&#39;ma editor2022 22:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)