Talk:William L. Keleher/GA2

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

Nominator: Ergo Sum (talk · contribs) 14:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 20:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ergo Sum. Good article. I've written a couple notes on the page that I think need to be fixed. Please let me know what you think so we can get this stellar feller to GA status. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good, but a note: • They then wrote letters to the Jesuit Superior General and the pope. – You should specify who this was for the reader. I've identified who the pope and superior general were at that time. Ergo Sum 16:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Everything is in order. No puffery.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good use of sfn type citation formatting.
	2b. 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).	The Wordpress reference needs to be replaced with something more reliable, especially since here are several more reliable citations that confirm what the sentence you've tagged it with claims. On the whole, this looks good; a spot check reflects good sourcing. I've removed that source, since the next inline citation supports the statement. Ergo Sum 16:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Good. Earwig marked only 9.1%.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Shouldn't there be a section on the dispute with the City of Newton per your Donovan et al. source (pp. 207–209)? Keleher personally wrote a letter to the aldermen. You should also consider adding the reasoning for why Keleher supported the introduction of the School of Education (i.e., to attract nuns from their archdiocese). I have added text about the barracks and Keleher's letter. Ergo Sum 16:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I was a little concerned about it going off the rails a little bit in the Boston College section, but the more I look at it, it's fine. The second and third paragraph don't mention Keleher at all, but it's easy to imagine how little of that would have been possible without his direct involvement as the head of the College and they effectively contextualize the following paragraphs in the section. They're good to go.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Evenhanded takes, even regarding heresies.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Obviously very stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Only image is public domain. Good to go.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Obviously no conflict here.
	7. Overall assessment.	See notes. In good shape, but needs some focusing.

@ThaesOfereode: Thank you for your review. I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Ergo Sum 16:44, 31 May 2024 (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.