Talk:William H. Keeler/GA2

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

Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 19:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this again since I didn't get past the copyright check on the last one, and I believe that has been dealt with. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

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:
 * The Cardinal was also responsible for the restoration, just say Keeler
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * his resignation to the Pope as required by Church law, there should be a Wikilink to 1983 Code of Canon Law. I'll let you decide how you want to put it in, but most people won't know what Church law is, so a Wikilink is ideal for clarity.
 * Done. Kept "Church law" phrase, now linked. Display name 99 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keeler was succeeded in the Baltimore see , concision is needed here. Try just removing in the Baltimore see
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * who had shot and wounded the priest whom he had accused of abusing him in a case in which Keeler had long been involved needs to be entirely rewritten. Awkward and confusing construction.
 * Done in the process of revising the section. Display name 99 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For the church, Keeler wrote that "rather than shrinking from this scandal — which, too often, has allowed it to continue — we must address it with humble contrition, righteous anger and public outrage. Telling the truth cannot be wrong." I don't see the purpose of this quote.
 * I shortened it. Some bishops had preferred to address the scandal privately, fearing the harm that would come to the Church should the issue become known. That's where the "telling the truth" part becomes important. But I agree that not all of that was needed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * he received his episcopal consecration on the following September 21 just use the full date
 * Removed "the following." Display name 99 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The hatnote should probably direct to William Keller such as For other people called William Keller see William Keller Hatnotes fall under MOS so putting this here. Otherwise looks good on MOS for GA purposes. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * His name is actually "Keeler," spelled with two es and one l, not "Keller." I was wondering if and when I would have to tell you this. Now seems appropriate. Display name 99 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I am glad to know that my knack for renaming cardinals during DYK and GA is not limited to 17th century cardinal nephews. I think Pietro Aldobrandini suffered a similar fate at my hand once. He became Pietro Aldabrandi if I recall. I've struck the above comment and fixed the rest. This does bring up another point though: he's the only William Keeler on Wikipedia, so he probably shouldn't have middle initial. Its a COMMONNAME question, but that can be handled after the GA since naming policy doesn't fall within the scope. I'll go through the rest of your changes in the morning. Also, when responding here, you should start your indenting with a # to not change the numbering (I did it this time. Just an FYI for the future).TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * All information is cited. I'll go through in the morning and verify all the content. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * See above. I need to verify the content and see if there is any other OR. Will do it over the weekend. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Both of his parents were of Irish descent was not in either the cited source (official bio) or the NYT obit (which I thought it might have been. You could either try to find a source or take it out (I don't think its critical to understanding him).
 * Fixed below
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig does return 40%, but this is because he has a lot of formal titles. These do not meet the standard for creative expression since there is no other way to phrase it, and they are written in a substantially different manner than the source text. Therefore, they do not constitute a copyrighted work under the laws of the United States which are applicable.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * He spent 7 years in Harrisburg, which isn't an insignificant amount of time. I'd expect to see more here about his time there. Not FA level of detail, but more than a sentence or two
 * I added a sentence. I made mention to "several committees for interreligious dialogue." I chose not to name the committees themselves, for in doing so it would be almost impossible to avoid close paraphrasing from the source. I couldn't find much on his tenure there. Aside from serving on the committees, he seems not really to have done anything of particular note. Display name 99 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think thats enough for GA. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * The sex abuse scandal part probably needs some fixing here. I'm not familiar with Keeler (I mainly deal with cardinals who have been dead for centuries), but the coverage here seems one-sided. Simply by being a bishop in 2002, he likely gained negative attention for the sex abuse scandal, even if on the whole the coverage was positive. I'll look for sources tonight and later in the week to confirm this, but if they exist, if you could balance this section a bit it would be important. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done a revision of this section. Some were actually critical of Keeler for allegedly not combating the scandal effectively enough. He seems to have done an about-face in how he handled the issue before and after 2002, or at least in the manner it was portrayed in the media. Display name 99 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good and appropriate weight in accordance with the sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No edit wars noted
 * 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:
 * Infobox image is public domain and uploaded by its original author. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * , see above. I haven't started the process of verifying the sources yet, but should do it (hopefully) over the weekend or early next week. The missing years in Harrisburg and the neutrality of the sexual abuse scandal aren't enough to quick fail it, but both of those will require a lot of work. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , looks all good except for the Irish bit on 2C, which is actually somewhat important to get cited if we are going to have it in the article given the history of ethnic relations within the Catholic Church in the United States. Other than that, this meets GA standards. When you've figured out how to deal with it, ping me, and I'll pass it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I actually found a source saying that he was of mixed Irish, Alsatian, and Scottish ancestry. I added that in. Regarding your suggestion for renaming the article, there is a Willie Keeler who played baseball, so it's imaginable that somebody may click on an article named "William Keeler" while trying to get to him. So I think it's best to leave h in. Otherwise, that takes care of everything. Thanks for doing the review. Display name 99 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, passes now. I might put it up for an RM in a week or so to gauge community consensus on the title: William Keeler redirects here and is already handled by a hatnote. That's outside the scope of GA review, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * , see above. I haven't started the process of verifying the sources yet, but should do it (hopefully) over the weekend or early next week. The missing years in Harrisburg and the neutrality of the sexual abuse scandal aren't enough to quick fail it, but both of those will require a lot of work. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , looks all good except for the Irish bit on 2C, which is actually somewhat important to get cited if we are going to have it in the article given the history of ethnic relations within the Catholic Church in the United States. Other than that, this meets GA standards. When you've figured out how to deal with it, ping me, and I'll pass it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I actually found a source saying that he was of mixed Irish, Alsatian, and Scottish ancestry. I added that in. Regarding your suggestion for renaming the article, there is a Willie Keeler who played baseball, so it's imaginable that somebody may click on an article named "William Keeler" while trying to get to him. So I think it's best to leave h in. Otherwise, that takes care of everything. Thanks for doing the review. Display name 99 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, passes now. I might put it up for an RM in a week or so to gauge community consensus on the title: William Keeler redirects here and is already handled by a hatnote. That's outside the scope of GA review, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)