Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bishop John Carroll (statue)/archive2

Bishop John Carroll (statue)

 * Nominator(s):  Ergo Sum  00:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent statue at Georgetown University of John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the United States and the founder of the university. The bronze statue was created in 1912. This is the second FA nomination for this article, and Ian Rose has offered to waive the two-week waiting period. In my estimation, the article seems to be in good shape.  Ergo Sum  00:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I enjoyed this article, which is short but concise, and I will likely support, knowing the earlier nom was archived due to lack of reviews. As usual with Ergo's nominations, the writing is very good. My main quibble, and we have discussed this before, is the usage of links to google books, I especially don't like the "via Google Books" qualifier. Those links are unstable, and access varies between territories.  Ceoil  (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I like to think it's brief but does the job. Can you remind me of your stance on Google Book links? I include them as convenience links.  Ergo Sum  13:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ergo, see my last sentence above. Anyway, per Nikki below, by any means not a reason to oppose. Will give a final look tonight. Ceoil  (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the language is a bit dated, which I hope is not an influence from older sources. Have fixed bits, eg "some believe" is now "A popular belief", but others remain, eg "attire", "sprawls", "Beneath his chair is", "celebratory pomp". Ceoil  (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That appears to be none other than the consequence of my own writing style; admittedly it is a bit more formal than much of the writing found on Wikipedia, I don't know if I would go so far as to call it dated.  Ergo Sum  05:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would certainly call it dated. Ceoil  (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "pomp" sounds a tad grandiose, but I fail to see what at all is dated about the words "attire," "sprawl," or "beneath." They're used in common parlance.  Ergo Sum  05:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would certainly call it dated, and would urge you to drastically rephrase each of these at the very least; unless my intent is not clear, I am worrying about close paraphrasing to aged sources. Dunno, instead of "attire", say "dress", etc. Ceoil  (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I opened my comments here saying I was probably going to support, and have always admired Ergo's very tight and sparse phrasing; from the three FAC articles of theirs I have read, there is no padding what-so-ever from this person (even on request), which to me indicates integrity to the sources. My suggestions above are suggestions only, have made trivial copyedits, am a Support either way. Ceoil  (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ceoil, your comments are always appreciated.  Ergo Sum  15:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Verification: A sample of spotchecks reveals no issues relating to verification or close paraphrasing
 * External links: Links to sources are all checked and working
 * Quality and reliability: In my view the sources meet the appropriate standards of quality and reliability.

On the question of google book links I share Ceoil's scepticism about their usefulness, but I don't object to them when they are included

Image review


 * Per the discussion at the previous FAC, unless earlier publication can be found or some other reason for copyright expiration identified, those unveiling images should not be considered PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, are you saying that these two images, if their PD status cannot be determined, must be deleted (both from the article and the Commons)?  Ergo Sum  17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Unless there is a rationale for fair use, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've contacted to owner to see if they would be willing to release the images through the OTRS system.  Ergo Sum  05:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Any response? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't gotten any response. I'll go ahead and nominate the images for deletion from the Commons.  Ergo Sum  00:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * I think the history section (apart from the second short paragraph, which could be deleted or merged into the student traditions section) should go before the description. I would also expand it. An article about a statue of Carroll as founder should have something about him and the foundation, particularly when it was founded. The comments on the speeches in the dedication section assume some knowledge of the background.
 * Is it known what the statue was based on? His face in the statue does not seem to me much like the portrait, which was presumably made from life.
 * "Bro. James Harrington". Is this short for Brother meaning that he was a monk? I would expand, particularly as dictionaries show Bro as slang for a male friend.
 * Conway is referred to in one place as Rev. and another as Fr. You should be consistent.
 * I would personally cut the number of people named as present and speaking at the unveiling. Anyone who is interested in details like that can go to the source.
 * I would specify that The Hoya is the university's student newspaper. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Good point re: a word on Carroll himself. I'll also try to rework the language to fill in the reader. 2) I've never seen anything saying that the statue's facial features were modeled off of anything in particular. 3) Bro. is the standard abbreviation for Brother as a title, but I can expand it. 4) I would politely disagree; checking the source is always an option for readers, but defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. 5) I'll make it consistent. 6) Same as no. 4. 7) Good call.  Ergo Sum  20:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to take a look at the revisions?  Ergo Sum  16:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The revisions look OK, apart from the ones to the history section. You have added a few words on Carroll, but not taken account of my other suggestions or explained your reasons for rejecting them. I think that the main text should start with a background section briefly covering the foundation of the institution and a sentence or two more on why Carroll was considered worthy of a statue. Comments such as "Rev. Terence J. Shealy made a speech about Carroll's influence on the Constitution's prohibition of religious tests for public office under Article VI." show that it was not only for his formal roles as bishop and founder. Also the sentence about the films is out of place between the early history and dedication. It should go in a popular culture section with the students. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I intend to address those remaining concerns. I've been very busy lately, and will be for some time, but I hope to get to this soon.  Ergo Sum  22:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done some substantial reorganization of the article. I think I've addressed all your concerns except for the one about a lengthier description of John Carroll. I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting. Currently, the History section opens with a description of Carroll as the founder of the university, as the archbishop of Baltimore, and as the first Catholic bishop in the United States. These were the three attributes that prompted the building of a statue. What else do you think should be said that wouldn't be best said in the John Carroll article itself?  Ergo Sum  18:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Coord note
Despite being on the urgents list, this is still struggling for commentary after almost six weeks. I can leave it a bit longer to see what Dudley thinks now, and perhaps you could use that time to scare up another review or too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will see what I can do.  Ergo Sum  16:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but things don't really seem to have progressed in almost ten days. The nom has been open seven weeks without gaining consensus to promote so I'm going to archive it; you can re-nominate after the usual two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)