Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Matthews (priest)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2018 [1].

William Matthews (priest)

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 21:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 19th-century American Catholic priest that led a really remarkable life. He was the first Catholic priest born in British America and was heavily involved in the establishment and expansion of the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. He founded and was the president of numerous religious and civil institutions, among which was Georgetown University. During his lifetime, he was a very well-known figure in both Washington society and the Catholic Church in America. I created this article in 2016 and recently expanded it significantly. I've researched the subject thoroughly online, at the Library of Congress, and at an academic library. As far as I'm able to tell, there is nothing encyclopedic about this person that is not included in the article. Ergo Sum 21:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Very_Rev._William_Matthews.png is missing the author's date of death, but how is the date after the publication date?

If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book was published in 1891, which means the image must have been created in 1891 or before (very likely before, since Matthews died in 1854). So, even if the author of the image were 1 year old when they created the image, and even if it were created in the year the book was published, 70 years from 1891 is still 1961. Ergo Sum 19:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

70 years ago is 1948. It would be possible for someone to be old enough to create the image in 1891 and young enough to survive past 1948. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:St._Matthew's_Cathedral_door_mural_cropped.jpg: in the US the photographer of a 2D work like a mural garners no new copyright, so the current tagging is incorrect
File:Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Philadelphia.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources question: There are 37 citations to Durkin's book, which, according to WorldCat, has 169 pages. There are no page references, no online links. How are these citations to be verified? Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I think I've resolved the hiccups regarding licensing for the first two images. For the third one, that image is transcluded by {{Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia}} at the bottom of the article, which I haven't worked on. Maybe Alekjds, the creator of the work, can assist? As for the book, it is not available online and it does not have an ISBN printed in the book. It is only available in academic research libraries (and perhaps the Library of Congress). My understanding of Indicating availability was that citing that book would be acceptable, as it was published by Benziger Brothers, a reliable publisher. I also don't know how to cite individual page numbers without being extremely repetitive with citations, since the citations all refer to different pages in the book, and having 37 different citations to the same book, but with different page numbers, would seem odd. Ergo Sum 05:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responsible for the image review, but I'm sure Nikki will pick up your responses. As to Durkin's book, you've been misinformed if you understand that citing the whole book without page references is sufficient. Citing each of the 37 refeferences individually is not at all odd, it's exactly what you have to do. Look at any number of the book-dependent nominations on the FAC page, and you'll see how it's done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, overlooked @Nikkimaria:'s signature. As the for book, I didn't realize that. I'll try to get my hands on a copy of the book within the next couple days and add page numbers. Ergo Sum 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo, having 37 different citations to the same book, but with different page numbers, would seem odd. It serves another purpose - indicating than an article is over reliant on a single source, and thus may not reflect the full breath of available scholarship. Note this will not always be the case as some topics are better covered in the literature than others, but may explain the request. Its a lot of work for you now, but may be a good approach for you to build into your editing technique from here. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: I've gotten a hold of the Durkin book and added page numbers for all inline references (except for one from a different book that I'm going to add when I get the book in the coming days). I don't think the article is over-reliant in this case, since it's a rather niche subject that is mentioned in passing frequently in contemporaneous documents and historical literature, but is only covered biographically by this one book, which goes into great detail. What do you think of how I've cleaned up the article? Ergo Sum 20:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Sum, delighted to see. Will have another read through over the weekend. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

The article is quite well written, but fragmented throughout into very short paragraphs (the lead was 6 paras on a 3996 word article) which makes reading a bit disjointed. I'd do a lot of merging, which would certainly help with flow. I would probably support after a resolution of source issues and a light c/e. More comments to follow. Ceoil (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I see Brian's request on page numbers has not been met, I'll have to register an oppose pending resolution. I have to say I'm a bit concerned that the nomination was made without having to hand a copy of the book used as the primary source. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book from an academic library that is only available to be taken out for brief periods of time. I have my hands on it again and seek to add page numbers this weekend. Haven't done it until now because I've been quite busy with real life things. Ergo Sum 22:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus

I agree with Ceoil's point on short paragraphs. Combining them would improve the article.
Early life: It might make sense to put the family part before the education part, since that is more in line with actual chronology.
"St. Patrick's was the largest parish in Washington, D.C. at the time[9] and the first Catholic church constructed." The first constructed in D.C.? If so, add "there" to the end of the sentence.
"He sought that there be no lay trustees for St. Peter's Church" I see what you mean here, but the phrasing is awkward. Maybe "He sought to avoid having lay trustees in positions of authority for St. Peter's Church"?
"Matthews was firmly opposed to the control of church properties by lay trustees, which resulted in Matthews later being selected for an ecclesiastical mission in Philadelphia." I know what you mean here, but only because I wrote the articles on Michael Francis Egan and Henry Conwell. Maybe add something to the end of this sentence to explain it, like "where a long-running dispute over trusteeism was in progress."
St. Peter's Church: I'm not sure what you're getting at with the second paragraph here. It seems like a minor point about something that may not have happened.
Miraculous event: I'm curious why you didn't make use of this 2011 book, which is entirely about the miracle. Seems like a good source to me.
Georgetown College: the parts about the Corporation of Catholic Gentlemen of Maryland and its relationship to the Society of Jesus will be confusing to most people without an explanation of the suppression of the Jesuits and their subsequent restoration. Without that, the idea that the Corporation considered itself a continuation of the Jesuits in America doesn't make much sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are good ideas. I'm going to work on the article this week and will try to incorporate these. Thanks for the link to the book, especially. Ergo Sum 00:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

I can see that there's just been some new activity here but the nom has been open six weeks without consensus for promotion beginning to develop so I'll be archiving this shortly. I also note that not all of Nikki's image queries seem to have been acknowledged. Can I suggest that Coemgenus and Ceoil review text changes and continue discussion with Ergo Sum on the article talk page, and then after the standard two weeks have passed following the archiving (as per FAC instructions) and image questions have been addressed, it be re-nominated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.