Wikipedia:Peer review/Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows/archive1

Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what it would require to improve the article to A-class standard. Thanks, Matthewafallen (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I found the article interesting, and would like to learn more. Here are my review comments:-
 * Lead
 * The lead needs to be expanded into a proper summary of the whole article.
 * First sentence of lead is lacking a verb in its main clause. Should be: "Saint Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows was a Passionist clerical student..."
 * Early life
 * "Sante Possenti was soon transferred..." Too vague. Do we have a year? If not, I would suggest "Shortly after this, Sante Possenti was transferred..."
 * Problematic sentence: "He was also known for the great care he took with regard to his appearance and could be occasion to bouts of anger." The two parts of the sentence are unconnected and shouldn't be joined by "and". And "...could be occasion to bouts of anger" is not grammatical. I assume the meaning is "was liable on occasion to bouts of anger".
 * The second paragraph is rather a mishmash of assorted facts, and needs some better organisation. It is also poorly referenced. It is not clear how much is covered by [4], but that is the last citation in the paragraph. Everything after that is uncited.
 * His "narrow escape from a stray bullet" is a bit laconic, and is probably worth a word or two more explanation.
 * Vocation: what is the source for the information in the final sentence of this section?
 * Passionist
 * Another poorly-cited section - no citations in the first, second or fourth paragraphs. The bare link in the fifth paragraph should be formatted as a reference.
 * "Morrovalle" should be wikilinked, as should "tuberculosis"
 * Wrong date format (February 27th)
 * The section is very light on information about Gabriel's religious life. For example, the religious writings that he ordered burnt. Do we know what these contained? What do they indicate about Gabriel? This is relevant information I would exect to find here. Shouldn't we also know something of his activity as a miracle worker? At present the section tells us very little about him.
 * Canonisation
 * The quote is too short for blockquote format - see MOS:QUOTE
 * "went deserted" is not correct. "lay deserted" would be OK. The thing that bothers me, though, is that the church where Gabriel was buried lay deserted, at a time when you say his fame was spreading through the local area. This seems odd.
 * The medical terms you use should be linked.
 * Patronage
 * No citations in first three paragraphs
 * "Many miracles have been attributed..." - but only one example?
 * Other points
 * The online reference should be properly formatted, with minimum information title, publisher, and last access date.
 * It would be helpful to have a bibliography. Books require ISBN details where appropriate - basically, for any book published after 1968.
 * File:Gabrad.jpg PD is claimed on the basis of date of author's death plus 70 years. Yet the author is given as Philippe Plet, who was clearly alive in 2007 when he uploaded the image. I think that the date refers to the painter, N. Diotallevi; do we know that Diotallevi died before 1939? The date of the painting is given as 1899, so it is quite conceivable he was still living in 1939, in which case the image might still be in copyright.
 * File:Gabriel7.jpg The source is given as "Bishop of Teremo" and the author as "Passionist Fathers". Neither of these is specific. Again PD is claimed on the basis of author's death plus 70 years, which is highly probable given the (alleged) date of the painting. But the source information should be clarified.

Overall, this is an interesting article, which needs a bit more work in several areas if it is to reach A-class or GA standards. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)