Wikipedia

Talk:Richard Gagnon/GA1

< Talk:Richard Gagnon
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Reidgreg in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago40 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 13:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Review to be forthcoming. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Criterion

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Review comments

edit
Prose
  • went on to serve → served
  • that began the 1980s → in the 1980s
  • He even reached out to lapsed and former Catholics I feel that there's a slight tone issue with even, which gives emphasis without explaining why it is being emphasized. Suggest removing, or maybe replacing with 'also'.
  • this included "full payment to the bond owners", many of whom were parishioners asked by the Diocese to purchase these bonds. I feel that the underlined part could be removed.
  • Favero's refusal to sack the administrator sack has a lot of homonyms and isn't universally understood to mean 'terminated from employment'. Suggest changing: sack → dismiss
  • was influenced by that of Modeste Demers, who was both Gagnon's collateral ancestor and predecessor as bishop of the Diocese. This is from his consecration. The information after the comma is already given in the section Early life, which talks about the ancestral relation and that Demers was the first bishop. This should be given in one place or the other, not both (or, alternatively, could have the lineage in one place and that he was the first bishop in the other). Since there are no other people named Demers in the article, the second mention could be simply "Demers" (per MOS:SURNAME).
  • I've changed to wording at the second mention to: "Gagnon's aforementioned ancestor and predecessor as bishop of the Diocese". I'm not sure those who first read the "Early life" section will later be able to put two and two together that Gagnon was Demers' successor, and I don't want to mention Gagnon's ministry as bishop in "Early life". —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Though his mother uses both surnames, she's the other person named Demers in the article. Is it already clear enough who's being referred to? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Ah, that's right! Okay, makes sense, good. 
  • Only when the situation became increasingly difficult in November of that same year did Favero again request a sabbatical, starting in the spring of 2007. It's not confusing, so not covered under the GA criteria, but it feels a little wordy to me. Consider: When the situation became increasingly difficult in November, Favero requested a sabbatical to have begun in spring 2007.
  • You're right, might not be confusing but would still like to make it easier to read. I've removed "Only" and "of that same year" and shortened to spring 2007, but retained "again". —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Reply
  • I feel that the lead could probably be restructured to give the most important information first, then possibly follow with the chronologically ordered paragraph. Maybe it could mention his prominent work with the indigenous communities and his background as a teacher? I'd like to think about that a little more.
  • I don't think Gagnon merits a lead of more than one paragraph (no offense to him). The Winnipeg Free Press source is the only one that mentions his background as a teacher, and even that's only passing mention in a sentence or two. For comparison purposes, my recently-passed GAs Francis Chan (bishop) and Lawrence Sabatini also utilized only one paragraph for the lead. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends a 1 or 2 paragraph lead for articles under 15,000 characters (this is about 11,000). Whether it's one or two paragraphs depends on whether it makes sense to have a structural break. What I'm primarily concerned about is getting his more-notable aspects closer to the top of the lead, particularly looking at the second sentence, and maybe adding in some of his accomplishments within his position, so that it doesn't just read as a list of the positions he's held. What do you think of this:
      Richard Joseph Gagnon (born June 17, 1948) is a Canadian bishop of the Catholic Church. He is a former bishop of Victoria, was appointed as Archbishop of Winnipeg in 2014, and became President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) in September 2019. He studied for the priesthood at the Pontifical Beda College in Rome and was ordained a priest in 1983. Gagnon served in the Archdiocese of Vancouver, where he had previously attended high school and university, as an assistant pastor and parish priest for two decades. In 2004, he was consecrated as a bishop. Gagnon has been noted for his work toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Victoria and Winnipeg. He is also noted for calling the first diocesan synod in the Archdiocese of Winnipeg.
      • Sorry, I didn't catch the part about you wanting to move his key posts to near the beginning.
      • I like the gist of it. I've changed a few parts though (I hope you don't mind). I've separated the sentence discussing him being CCCB president from the earlier part discussing his posts as arch/bishop. Also took out mention from of his high school and university from the sentence about him serving in Vancouver – since it could confuse readers as to the chronology (also sounded a bit factoid-ish being in the middle of that sentence) – and placed it before his seminary studies. While I left out the part of him getting the title of monsignor (since that's more of an honorific than a position), I restored back the part about him becoming vicar general (yielding actual authority as the Archbishop's second-in-command). Hope those changes are alright with you. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • @Bloom6132: No problem; I'm never sure if I should make a new section for this part of the review. The lead is one of the first things in the criteria but one of the last things to be addressed (after the article body is sorted). I'm going to post your lead here in its entirety for discussion.
      Richard Joseph Gagnon (born June 17, 1948) is a Canadian bishop of the Catholic Church. He was Bishop of Victoria until 2014, when he was appointed as Archbishop of Winnipeg, a position he holds to this day. He has also served as President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) since September 2019. Gagnon attended high school and university in Greater Vancouver, before studying for the priesthood at the Pontifical Beda College in Rome. He was ordained a priest in 1983 and served in the Archdiocese of Vancouver as an assistant pastor and parish priest for two decades. He became vicar general of the Archdiocese in 2002, and was consecrated as a bishop two years later. Gagnon has been noted for his work toward reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Victoria and Winnipeg. He is also noted for calling the first diocesan synod in the Archdiocese of Winnipeg.
      Looks good. I'm fine with your changes except possibly the placement of 2014. This may owe to my awkward structure in putting his previous position at the beginning of the sentence. What if that sentence was rephrased as: He is the Archbishop of Winnipeg, appointed to the position in 2014 after previously serving as the Bishop of Victoria. I think that reads a little better. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply


Referencing & verifiability
  • Motto "To obey is to serve in love" is only present in the infobox, so it's difficult to tell its source. As a quotation, the GA criteria require it to have an inline citation. It can be sourced to ref name=archdiocese, with citation either in the infobox or preferably somewhere in the body of the article. (Or, if it's not that important to an understanding of the subject, remove it.)
  • archdiocese Archdiocese of Winnipeg, primary source
    • verified for all citations, quote, the dates and half of the info in the Ordination sidebar. Mostly lists of appointments, nothing controversial. 
  • "Catholic-Hierarchy"
    • verified Roussin as the principal consecrator, month-year of first ad liminia, remaining data from Ordination sidebar 
  • Vocations Ordination Dates RCAV, primary source
    • Verified dates in ordination sidebar 
  • "St Pauls College" University of Manitoba, primary source
    • Verified six citations, dates and positions held, nothing controversial 
  • Charismatic conference archeparchy.ca
    • This is used as an example of the honorific "His Grace" which I think is generally verifiable. 
  • CHA gg.ca
    • Verifies collateral descendent of Modeste Demers, first Bishop of Vancouver Isle, whose heraldry influenced the subject's coat of arms, described, and the subject had ancestral roots in Quebec. 
  • directory RCAW, primary source
    • Verifies coat of arms, Demers, the year he called the synod. 
  • About Us RCDV, primary source 
  • Suderman1 
  • Zenit 
  • Monroe bio at Clan Munro Association of Canada, primary source
    • Not a great source, but supplements others used for one citation. 
  • You're right. I've now replaced it with a Vancouver Sun article (which I also used for the Sabatini GA, albeit to source different info). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Checked Vancouver Sun article ProQuest 242541441, confirms Monroe was vicar-general and served at St. John the Apostle.  Confirmed
  • New Bishop for Kamloops Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, primary source
    • Verification of position held and date 
  • named bishop in Yellowknife Archdiocese of Vancouver, primary source 
  • New Victoria bishop Vancouver Sun via Newspapers.com
    • Verifies 16th bishop, installed 20/7/2004 at St Andrew's Cathedral, succeeding Roussin 
  • bore many burdens Western Catholic Reporter, primary source
    • Roussin ordained Gagnon as a bishop, I think that's right. 
  • audiences Vatican Information Service, primary source 
  • Moneo1 The Globe and Mail
  • Watts Times Colonist
    • The discord between Favero and Gagnon was later resolved when Favero "took responsibility for not honouring confidentiality and misrepresenting events". I wish there was another source to provide a little more context on this. Suggest: The discord between Favero and Gagnon was later resolved; the Times Colonist reported in 2013 that Favero had "[taken] responsibility for not honouring confidentiality and misrepresenting events".
  • Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Reply
  • Page 2 of the Diocese's newspaper does mention how Gagnon and Favero said Mass together in May 2012 for the opening of a new church where Favero was pastor. Granted, it's not really the best source, since it could be viewed as "damage control" or good PR. I don't think there are other secular newspapers that reported on the resolution of their disagreement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Ah, I found coverage on that at ProQuest 1011579210. It doesn't mention Favero, so it didn't show up in my earlier searches when I tried to cross-reference them. I think you could use this with the newsletter to say they gave the mass together. It only mentions Gagnon, Chief Gordon Planes and Elder Shirley Alphonse by name. It mentions a special mass, to be conducted by Bishop Gagnon and to include drummers and singers from the T'Souke Nation and the St. Rose of Lima choir. Here are citation details: cite news|title=New church for St. Rose of Lima congregation. |date= May 9, 2012|work=The Sooke Mirror |location=Sooke, British Columbia| |page=5 |publisher=Black Press |id=ProQuest 1011579210 |access-date=May 22, 2020 |url-access=subscription |quote=On May 5, 2012 Catholic Diocese of Victoria Bishop Richard Gagnon and T'Sou-ke Nation Chief Gordon Planes led celebrations marking the official opening of the new St. Rose of Lima Catholic church in Sooke.
  • I've added the above article (with the link to the original Sooke News Mirror article so that it can be freely read). I've also added info about the two at the groundbreaking ceremony together (with a second Diocesan Messenger newsletter as source). However, I'm open to moving "in July 2011" to another place within the first half of that sentence if you found it confusing to read. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Verified from sources, thanks for finding the non-subscription article. I do feel there's a slight bit ambiguity whether "July 2011" is when the groundbreaking took place or when Favero was a pastor at the new church. Not a huge deal, but the sort of thing which might give the reader pause. Suggest: In 2011, the two participated in a groundbreaking ceremony for a new church where Favero later served as pastor (or similar)
  • Dickson1 Times Colonist
  • Moneo2 Globe and Mail  
  • "The Province" Parishioners are angry...
    • Pressreader wouldn't load for me, but found this at ProQuest 269468892 (subscription). Verified citations and quote. 
  • Dickson2 Times Colonist "Bishop mum" via PressReader
  • Moneo3 Globe and Mail "Priest disputes bishop's claim"
    • Slight problem with the quotations Gagnon contended that Favero had requested to resign in late spring of 2006 – before the issue arose – "for personal reasons", with Gagnon asking him to remain. and but that he "[did] not want a public battle with the bishop". The context makes these sound like quotations from Gagnon and/or Favero. However, rather than being direct quotes, the source is paraphrasing them, so the quotes are from the author of the source, Shannon Moneo. So I feel that they should either be paraphrased or framed so that it's clear they are attributed to Moneo, e.g. According to freelance journalist Shannon Moneo, Favero "[did] not want a public battle with the bishop".
  • I've removed the quotations around "for personal reasons" and will invoke WP:LIMITED (unless you know of another expression for that). For the second, I've placed "according to journalist Shannon Moneo" at the end of the quotation. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • That reads great. 
  • Dickson3 Times Colonist "Bishop stresses confidentiality" via Newspapers.com
  • Dickson4 "Bishop not telling" Times Colonist via PressReader
    • Found at ProQuest 348146806. 
    • Favero was reluctant to do so, and his decision to consult with the parish council incensed Gagnon, who reprimanded him for breaching confidentiality. The underlined part is according to Favero, and the article should state this as his opinion rather than objective fact. Suggest: and decided to consult with the parish council. Favero said that this incensed Gagnon, who reprimanded him for breaching confidentiality.
Breadth and focus
  • I noticed that a couple of the pages give the subject with the postnominals D.D. Is that a doctorate of divinity (Doctor Divinitatis)? I feel like that should be included in the article if you can source it. Or is this perhaps an honorary degree?
  • Yes, it is. Sorry, you'll have to refresh my memory as to which sources – I don' remember seeing that he had obtained that doctorate. Nor any info on him receiving an honorary degree. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Sorry, I thought I saw it in a couple of the article's sources, but I didn't make note of it at the time and now I can't spot it. In any case, they didn't explain what it was or give any details. I tried searching at https://www.bedacollege.org and a couple other places but didn't find anything.
  • No worries! I've found several sources where it's mentioned after his name (either signing off here and here, or being referred to as such). Take this with a grain of salt, but I read on an online forum that all bishops receive that honorific when they are consecrated (though I do find it somewhat odd signing off with an honorary degree). However, I haven't been able to find what year he earned it in or which institution he received it from. I'm leaning towards not including it given the ambiguity around it. I'd rather err on the side of not mentioning a degree (which he already chooses not to publicize) than to list a degree that he doesn't have. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Neutrality
  • in his past positions made him an ideal selection as Archbishop. the source said that he would be "a good choice", so I feel it should be toned down a bit from "ideal selection". Perhaps "made him a fitting selection for Archbishop" or "made him suitable for the position of Archbishop".
Media

One image tagged with CC licence.  Some reviewers might want more images, and a bio pic of the subject would be ideal if a free one could be obtained, and there are probably free images of some of the places he's worked. But I don't feel it's necessary to an understanding of the subject.

I actually have one free image personally, but it's extremely low resolution (180 x 150 px) and quite "historical" (April 2002). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think that's still big enough to be useful. But it's your call, I won't hold the review for lack of images. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Added that photo and an accompanying caption – hope both of those are alright. It's my first time uploading a photo of mine of a living subject, so if I'm missing anything (e.g. personality rights, etc.), please let me know. Not sure how relevant (or potentially damaging) this is, but I did not ask for permission from the subject before posting that photo of him. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Confirmed new image File:Richard Gagnon 2002.jpg tagged with CC licence. Nice alt text. 
There's a little more at Personality rights#Canada. BC seems to have the strictist legislation, but it's still pretty new and legislation is evolving as it is tested in court. There is no commercial gain on your part and I don't see how it would be damaging, so I don't think those protections apply. There's also the consideration of whether the subject had an expectation of privacy; they're smiling for the photo, so that doesn't seem to be the case. I think you're good, but I'm not an expert and I believe it's against policy to offer legal advice on Wikipedia, which makes these sort of things even more difficult to figure out. To the best of my determination I believe it is within policy and meets the GA criteria. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Other areas to improve

edit

Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might want to improve:

  • The GA criteria don't have a lot to say about infoboxes, but I'll mention that MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE notes that the purpose of the infobox is to summarize key facts that appear in the article. "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". If an infobox is crowded with too much information, it is difficult for the reader to quickly pick out the key information, and the important points become lost in a list of trivial factoids. I'm very much in favour of this 'less is more' approach, and recommend only listing the most important information rather than trying to fill every parameter in the template. For example, the |residence= parameter doesn't have to be used at all, Winnipeg is already given as his See, and former residences don't apply. (I think residence is usually used for a specific location, like The White House, rather than a city.) Similarly, |alma_mater= should be only for the highest stage of the subject's education, if at all. Non-notable family members don't have to be listed. The motto "To obey is to serve in love" isn't in the article and is unsourced. Really, anything which isn't prominent in the article or a defining characteristic of the subject shouldn't be there.
  • I've sourced his motto, removed his secondary school education (keeping both SFU and the seminary in Rome), and removed his residences and mention of his parents. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Reply

General discussion

edit

A lot of primary sources which is probably normal for a subject like this (for academics or clergy). These primary sources are used for positions, dates and colleagues, and I didn't spot anything controversial or non-neutral. I feel that it would benefit from a little bit of copy editing and context/cleanup around some of the quotations, and it should be good. I am putting the review on hold for seven days for edits to meet the GA criteria. Please feel free to discuss anything, and let me know when you're ready for me to have another look at it. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering – do you think his recent comments regarding Jean Vanier would be useful to add? If you're unable to access the article, "Gagnon said he was shocked at the findings of the inquiry, after having met Vanier on multiple occasions and visiting L’Arche communities in Vancouver and France." —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
The scandal doesn't tie to Gagnon or Winnipeg so it seems peripheral to this subject. His comments might have a place in the Jean Vanier article.
I checked all of your changes to the article. Please have a look at my lead proposal at the end of the prose notes, above.
Oh, I also found another source for the mass Gagnon held (with Favero). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Reidgreg: I hope I've addressed your remaining comments and concerns in a satisfactory manner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Bloom6132: Okay, I've checked your additional changes, re-read the article, the lead is good, and I am satisfied that it meets the GA criteria. It is my pleasure to pass the review. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Gagnon/GA1&oldid=958558724"