Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas F. Mulledy/archive1

Thomas F. Mulledy

 * Nominator(s):  Ergo Sum  03:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the two-time President of Georgetown University, one of the founders of the College of the Holy Cross, and a prominent 19th-century leader of the Jesuits in the United States. He was very cantankerous and was not on good terms with most of his fellow Jesuits. Today, he is most remembered for having been the main actor in the 1838 Jesuit slave sale, in which he sold 272 slaves owned by the Jesuits to pay off Georgetown's debts. This resulted in significant protests at Georgetown and Holy Cross in 2015 and 2016, respectively.  Ergo Sum  03:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor
Will be providing feedback shortly w/ disclaimer that I'm an alumnus of Georgetown.  ceran  thor 20:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Prose notes
 * "He went on to become twice the President of Georgetown College in Washington, D.C. " - I always find "went on" a redundant phrase like "subsequently"... why not just "he was twice the President" or "for two terms"?
 * Rephrased to sound more streamlined.  Ergo Sum  03:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think the meaning of the twice President mention is unclear from the rest of the lead; perhaps just mention the years and it should be more obvious?
 * With the above rephrasing, I think it is clearer now.  Ergo Sum  03:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Before receiving any formal education, he and his brother, Samuel Mulledy, taught at the Romney Academy in their hometown.[9][10] " - who is he here? father or son?
 * Clarified.  Ergo Sum  03:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "The legislature eventually awarded Georgetown lots across the city worth $25,000, title to which was transferred to the college on February 20, 1837.[35]" - think you are missing the word "the" before "title"
 * I've seen it both ways, with or without the article, but generally I don't see "the" appear before title in the real estate world.  Ergo Sum  03:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "ulledy had developed alcoholism, and subsequently resolved to observe a year of abstinence.[42] " - "subsequently" adds nothing here
 * I've rephrased it, though it doesn't make sense unless one communicates that the abstinence occurred after the alcoholism.  Ergo Sum  03:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Roothaan was particularly persuaded" - don't think you need "particularly" here
 * Removing the word changes the meaning of the sentence. The idea is that Eccleston tipped the scale for Roothaan without being the sole persuading factor. I'm not sure how to rephrase it to communicate this idea without using essentially the same verbiage.  Ergo Sum  03:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, the prose is of excellent quality, and I feel comfortable supporting this per 1a.  ceran  thor 01:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, . I believe I've addressed each of them.  Ergo Sum  03:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * Don't use fixed px size
 * Converted px to upright scaling factor.  Ergo Sum  21:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Thomas_Mulledy_daguerreotype.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Mulledy_Hall_1898.jpg, File:Fenwick_Hall,_Holy_Cross.gif
 * Those three images were created in the 1840s, 1898, and 1844, respectively. My reading of U.S. copyright law (which I take from here) is that works created prior to 1899 (120+ years old) are in the public domain regardless of when or where they were first published. Is this not how you read it?  Ergo Sum  21:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The 120+ years old rule applies to "never published, never registered" works, which would require that we know these are unpublished (and would also require different tagging). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the confusion; I forgot to mention I was talking about anonymous works regarding the 120 year rule. I've done quite a bit of searching and have been unable to find any attribution for these three photos or the one below (St. John's Literary Institution). While one cannot state with certainty that these are anonymous works, I think they have to meet the definition of anonymous works, since the only places that would have information regarding their authorship (the archives that currently hold the actual images) provide no further information; i.e. this is not merely a situation in which a random website displays the photo without any information. These images are in the possession of archival custodians whose purpose is to preserve information about their holdings, and they have none. Therefore, it is my understanding that while anonymity should not be presumed, the high bar is met here, so the 120 year rule supersedes any publication date + 95 year calculus.  Ergo Sum  04:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that the works are anonymous. But if you look at the Cornell link you've provided, the 120-year rule for anonymous works applies only to "never published, never registered" works - that's the bit that is at this point uncertain. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have found no evidence that these images were published prior to being uploaded recently to various websites (which I understand is currently up for debate as to whether internet uploads constitute publication). In any event, if I could draw your attention to the actual copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17), at section 302(c) (concerning anonymous works), I read it as applying equally to anonymous works that were published or unpublished. What do you think?  Ergo Sum  18:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first". What is the first known upload? Have any of the uploads you've seen provided details on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I've searched for any history of the images that would indicate prior publication, but haven't found anything.  Ergo Sum  21:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

 * File:Articles_of_agreement_between_Thomas_F._Mulledy,_of_Georgetown,_District_of_Columbia,_of_one_part,_and_Jesse_Beatty_and_Henry_Johnson,_of_the_State_of_Louisiana,_of_the_other_part._19th_June_1838.pdf needs a US PD tag
 * Added tag.  Ergo Sum  21:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * File:St._John's_Literary_Institution_Frederick.jpg: when/where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto from bullet no. 2 (since the photo was created in 1890).  Ergo Sum  21:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support from me. When I reviewed this for GA, I noted that both my review and the quality of the article exceeded the basics required for a GA.  Nothing has changed, this is a featured quality article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Links: Ref 69 is returning a 404 error, although the archive goes to the source. Otherwise, all links to sources working, as per the checker tool
 * Formats
 * Check ref 42: "pp. 24–24"?

Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality and reliability: As far as I can judge, the sources are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability as required by to meet the FA criteria.
 * Thank you for the source review. I've fixed the dead url. Regarding ref 42, can you explain what needs checking? I'm not seeing anything wrong.  Ergo Sum  14:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not Brian, but the problem is currently with ref 43. Same page number in the range. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's right in front of me! Same page numbers. Fixed. Thanks for suffering my confusion.  Ergo Sum  04:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Support from Ceoil
Will give this a close read this evening.
 * Maybe establish notability earlier in the lead; would expand the opening sentence "was an American Catholic priest from Virginia", which is a bit "so what".
 * I've beefed up the lede sentence so a reader would more quickly learn what the subject was all about.  Ergo Sum  19:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure about "severe censure", perhaps drop "severe" as the two words don't go well together, and you detail the exile later in the same sentence.  Ceoil  (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  19:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By the same token as my first point on notability, would mention the 2015 student protests, reasons and outcome in the lead. I will probably object on this point alone if the reasons are not mentioned in the lead.
 * I've added a few sentences about the protests at Georgetown and Holy Cross to the lede.  Ergo Sum  19:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * He was unable to fund a new building to house a refectory, chapel, study hall, and dormitories until a Jesuit who had not yet taken final vows and still retained his property offered Mulledy a substantial loan. Overly muddy. Ceoil  (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've broken it up into two sentences and rephrased them to be much clearer.  Ergo Sum  19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mulledy scummed to alcoholism, but later resolved to observe a year of abstinence. This seems as white washing; no other details, and "but later" is an undefined, how many years later. Resolved is one thing; was he successful. Ceoil  (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rephrased the sentence slightly; I'm not sure how else to say it without sounding a little whitewashed, since the source does not say whether he was successful in breaking his alcoholism or how much later he tried abstinence after developing alcoholism.  Ergo Sum  19:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Make it clear what the source doesn't say, or remove. In fact, this should totally go. Ceoil  (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Have read closely. Excellent choice for an FA, if done well. Its not currently, and needs work, imo. Ceoil  (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I will go through them in the morning. To clarify, do you mean that it will be in good shape for FA after your comments have been addressed?  Ergo Sum  07:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support the page as currently written. Ceoil  (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone through all your comments, and I believe I've addressed them. If there are additional things that you think should be done to have this article satisfy the FA criteria, I'd appreciate your comments.  Ergo Sum  19:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mulledy Hall at the College of the Holy Cross retained Mulledy's name, but was supplemented by an additional one, bearing the name of a subsequent president who pursued racial integration on campus. I cant understand this; "an additional one"? Given the emotive (slave trader) statement just before, I would like absolute, in tiny words, clarity here. Ceoil  (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on the sentences about the building names. I found it a bit difficult to state concisely what was going on. Between your reworking of them and a few followup edits I just made, I think it's much clearer now. PS, I did remove the words "slave trader" because (as I said in my edit summary), I think it's rather exaggerated, since he was not a career trader, but executed one sale.  Ergo Sum  21:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, have confidence in Ergo, am now leaning support. Ceoil  (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, let me know what you think of it now.  Ergo Sum  21:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Have had another look over. What I was looking for in the end was balance, and I appreciate the quick response. Support. Ceoil  (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)