Talk:Peter Verhaegen/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Modussiccandi (talk · contribs) 14:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll start reviewing this later today. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is good throughout. I'll go through the article and see if there are any minor changes I'd make. One minor point: I would change the phrasing of concealing in voyage - it sounds rather unidiomatic.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Generally fine, though I'd like to raise the following points: 1) in the lead, I would rephrase in what today is Belgium per MOS:RELTIME. 2) The "Early life" section could, perhaps, be subdivided into a pre- and post-US stage. (something like, "Early life" and "Education in Missouri").	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Uses a reference system close to the one I personally prefer. Web sources are consistently grouped in the citation section. No concerns here.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All sources used in the article are reliable. Although this doesn't relate to reliability, it noticed that a large proportion of the citations come from publications associated with the Society of Jesus. I don't see this as a concern because the article takes care to follow that facts and shows no perceptible bias.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No violation of the original research policy were found. As I said, the article does well at limiting itself to the facts.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Earwig's shows no signs of plagiarism.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article covers all relevant aspects. Indeed, it's surprising how much was extracted from the sources since biographical information on educators is normally scarce.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Coverage stays focused throughout. The most detailed section ("Early life") is still far under the threshold of what I would consider unfocused.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The subject is presented in a neutral fashion. His religious and educational background as well as his work as Missouri vice provincial are given due prominence.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The article has mainly been edited by one person and shows no signs of instability.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Since the subject died in the 19th century, the imagine contained in the infobox is undoubtedly in the public domain.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The caption in the infobox is appropriate.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	This is a very good article. I am happy to pass it once the small issues in section 1 are dealt with.

Discussion

@Ergo Sum: I've finished my review. I have also done a bit of easy-to-resovle copyediting. All that's left are some minor issues which I wanted to leave to you. Let me know when their done and I'll give the article a pass. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Modussiccandi Thanks for your review. I've attended to your comments. The only one I haven't is the one about splitting the Early life section. It's not a terribly long section as it stands, and having one section that is only one rather short paragraph doesn't seem like it would really benefit readers. Ergo Sum 01:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Ergo Sum, don't worry about the first section; I was quibbling at a very high level anyway and I agree there is no perfect solution. I will let the article through to GA status now. Well done and thank you for dealing with my comments so swiftly. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.