Talk:Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

By now I have done a quite couple of read thoughts and the article appears to be at or about GA-level. However, there are a few "problems" that will need to be addressed before GA-status can be awarded.

• Y (Pyrotec (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)) - The one that will take the most effort is WP:verifiability. Two of the references used are books - particularly ref 3 which is used numerous times, but also reference 2. As these are books, page numbers should be given: citing one book almost 60 times without providing pages numbers is not the way to achieve GA-status.

• Nice work. Pyrotec (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect that the WP:Lead is a bit short; but I tend to leave that until last, anyway. Pyrotec (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I will now go through the article in more depth, section by section. At this stage of the review, I concentrate mostly on "problems" so whilst this stage may appear to be somewhat negative, by the end all the points will have been covered. Pyrotec (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Early life -

• Y (Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)) - Quite a readable section, but there are some notable inconsistencies over namings.

• The subject of the article is "Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté", and the "Marie" suffix is explained. However, in the first paragraph the subject is introduced as "Rosalie Cadron". In the second paragraph she is not yet married but is referred to as "Cadron-Jetté", but her husband-to-be is introduced as "Jean-Marie Jetté" and referred to as "Jean-Marie" for the rest of this and the following paragraph (and he is then referred to as the "husband" until he dies).
• I would suggest consistency of names and namings.

• Y (Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)) - This use of the married name before marriage, possibly confuses the status of Paul Jetté. Presumably it is intended to state that Paul Jetté was related by marriage to Rosalie Cadron before she met Jean-Marie Jetté, being at that time her uncle. Otherwise, after marriage he would have been a brother in law? I think the text needs to be clarified slightly.
• Y (Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)) - The use of "the family" needs to be clarified in respect of the sale of the house. The article states that in 1811 the house and the land was gifted to Cadron-Jetté & Jean-Marie provided that the parents could live there for the rest of their lives and the Sophie reached the age of majority. The house was sold in 1822 and the "family" moved - did that include the parents and/or Sophie, its not made clear?

• The age of majority is not stated, but as "Cadron-Jetté" married at 17, perhaps it was about that age? The final paragraph does state that her mother died in 1838.

• Comment - Could you explain this point re: age of majority? What are you suggesting needs to change? I'm reasonably certain none of the sources explain what the age of majority is in Lower Canada at the relevant time. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm looking for some clarity of who moved, it could be any combination of Rosalie Cadron (and her husband - I take that as granted), one of more of her parents, her sister. If my comment about "the age of maturity" can't be answered from the sources to hand, I will discount it; but if, for example, Sophie Cadron reached that age and moved out then that could be added. Pyrotec (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hospice de Sainte-Pélagie -

• The fourth paragraph, which seems to be discussing May 1, 1845 onwards, refers to her children but the final paragraph of Early life states that by 1839 her remaining children were mature and/or dead.

• See comments on worklist below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• In the same paragraph, is "Blvd" the full name (Dorchester Blvd) or an abbreviation?

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• In the fifth paragraph - the Wolfe Street premise - there is some uncertainty over what was occupied, i.e. only half the attic or half of the three stories and the attic. It would be nice if this could be clarified (sources permitting).

• Institute of Misericordia Sisters -

• This section looks OK.

• Late life and death -

• This section looks OK.

• Proposal for canonization & Legacy -

• These two sections look OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• This is intended to both provide an introduction and to summarise the main points within the article. Its quite good as an introduction, but argably the only summary is that about being "declared a Servant of God".

• As a way forward I suggest that you think about inserting a concise summary between "....she founded the Institute of Misericordia Sisters." and "In 1990 she was declared a Servant of God ....". This could summarise the various sites: Hospice de Sainte-Pélagie and Institute of Misericordia Sisters; relationships with the community and the medical prefession; the forth vow and midwifery, etc. You have up to three paragraphs worth of text potentially available for the lead.
• You don't have to do it this way, that would be my way, but its not the only way of doing it; however it is in need of improvement.

At this point my Initial review is complete and I'm put the review On Hold, but I have both the article and this review on my watchlist. You've made excellent progress so far: Congratulations on your work. Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To do (worklist)

(For use in addressing suggested GA improvements.)

• Convert all book citations to format that allows for page numbers, and then ensure each citation displays an appropriate page number.
  

- Done - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Use Cadron or Cadron-Jette in a consistent and logical fashion throughout article
  

- Done - Name is now "Cadron" for events prior to marriage, "Cadron-Jette" afterwards, and with a sentence explaining the change in name. This is in accordance with previous GAs such as Hillary Rodham Clinton. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Clarify name usage for Jean-Marie Jette - is naming style used consistently?

- Done. The difficulty with (Rosalie's husband) Jean-Marie Jette is that he shares a surname with Rosalie and her children, so can't be called "Jette", and shares a first name with Rosalie's firstborn son, who is also named Jean-Marie. Therefore it's necessary to break from the usual format of referring to him only by surname in order to disambiguate him from other persons referred to in the biography. "Rosalie's husband" is, where appropriate, the most appropriate way to do this. This decision appears to confirm to the practice on using names at WP:SURNAME. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Clarify text regarding relationships of Paul Jette and Jean-Marie Jette to Rosalie.
  

- Citation introduced to show text of original source. Sadly this confusion is present in the source (Gregoire (2007) p.16), which merely says ""Rosalie meets [...] Jean-Marie Jette, apparently at a family gathering. The latter, in his thirties, is Paul Jetté's brother, Rosalie's uncle by marriage." Paul is not otherwise mentioned in that text. I assume that Paul Jette is a brother-in-law of Rosalie Roy or Antoine Cadron (Rosalie's parents) and that Jean-Marie is then Paul's brother, but that would constitute original research. I've stuck to the wording of the source, but introduced a citation showing that wording to help potential readers understand the problem. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Clarify who is "the family" in relation to sale of the Lavaltrie residence.
  

- I've changed "family" to "Jette family" in the relevant sentence, which is the text from the source (Gregoire (2007) p.20). It's unclear in the source exactly who constitutes the "Jette family". From later events it seems likely that it's Rosalie, Jean-Marie, Rosalie's sister Sophie, Rosalie's parents, and all of Rosalie's children, as (a) they're the ones living in the house at the time and (b) both Sophie and Rosalie's mother are later shown to be in St Hyacinthe. Explicitly stating it, though, without a source supporting it would be a synthesis of sources, so until such a source shows up I've left it in the current slightly vague phrasing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• On further examination of the source it does explicitly support that Sophie and the parents accompanied Cadron-Jette on the move. Article amended accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Clarify "children" in "Hospice de Sainte-Pélagie" section.
  

- The children in question are Rosalie's mature children. The sources are not specific as to which particular children are involved here but it's one or more people she gave birth to, most likely Jean-Marie and/or Rose. I'm unsure how this concern can be better addressed and if it's still not satisfactory I would appreciate further advice. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Clarify situation with Sophie and "age of maturity".
  

- See comments in relation to "the family" and the house move above. Gregoire (2007) p.28 suggests Sophie probably left Rosalie's care while they were in St-Hyacinthe as she is shown to still be there after Rosalie reaches Montreal, but again that's only an indirect reference drawn from the text, and I can't find any better explanation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Clarify occupancy of Wolfe Street premises if possible.
  

- While several sources confirm the Sisters moved to the Wolfe Street premises, the only one that deals in detail with their occupancy is Gregoire (2007) p.43, which merely says "[They] settle into a bigger and more practical house - a two-storey wooden structure, including an attic - situated on Wolfe Stree in Faubourg Quebec. The other side of the house is occupied by the owner, Jean-Baptiste Bourgault." I have changed the wording of the sentence to closely match the source (which prevents it from being read in a way that suggests the Hospice only had half the attic and nothing more), and introduced a citation with an accompanying direct quote from the source. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Investigate whether sources say whether "Blvd" or "Boulevard is correct for Dorchester Bvld, and amend if necessary.
  

- I suspect it should be "Boulevard" but the only source for it (Gregoire (2007) p.40) uses the form "Blvd" so I've kept it as that to match the text. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• René Lévesque Boulevard (which was renamed from Dorchester) suggests the long form Boulevard is appropriate. Article changed accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Expand lead para per review suggestions.
  

- I've had a go at expanding the lead section, summarising what I feel are the key elements of the article and the most notable aspects of her life. I don't personally feel the minutiae of the various places the Hospice moved to are that notable but I stand to be convinced. I've not had much (or, really, any) practice in writing expanded leads so I'm open to further suggestions, or alternatively to any editor stepping in to do a better job. One of my concerns in writing the article was to keep it as far as possible focused on Rosalie, rather than the Misericordia Sisters generally (while noting they don't (yet) have their own wiki article), and I've attempted to carry that focus across into the lead. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've "tightened up" your Lead. It now looks fine. Pyrotec (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A compreshensive, well-referenced article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)