Talk:Samuel Merrill Woodbridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleSamuel Merrill Woodbridge is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 11, 2013.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 21, 2013Good article nomineeListed
November 9, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
July 30, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 26, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Rev. Samuel Merrill Woodbridge, a Rutgers College and New Brunswick Theological Seminary professor and minister, was the 11th generation in a family of clergymen stretching back to 1493?
Current status: Former featured article

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Samuel Merrill Woodbridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review and will examine the article in detail in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First reading[edit]

In general this article is well-written and seems to cover the main aspects of Rev. Woodbridge's life and career. A few points I noticed:

  • Some more wikilinking is required for such words as ecclesiastical, theology, sermon, pastor, seminary, faculty, Dutch Reformed Church, synod, pastoral, didactic, polemic
  • "His earliest ancestor, Rev. John Woodbridge (b. 1493) was a follower of John Wycliffe." - This was not really his first ancestor.
  • Done (20SEP13) - rephrased as "The earliest clergyman in this ancestral line..."--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While a student at New York University, Woodridge was a member of the secretive, all-male Eucleian Society and be elected to Phi Beta Kappa" - This sentence is not quite right and I don't think it needs to repeat the full name of the university.
  • Done (20SEP13), rephrased as "As an undergraduate student..."
  • "In December 1857, Rev. Woodbridge was appointed to the faculty of two schools in New Brunswick, New Jersey-—for 44 years as a professor of ecclesiastical history ..." - I'm sure he was not appointed for a 44 year term so maybe add "he was to serve 44 years" or somesuch.
  • Done (20SEP13) - replaced usage with serve, made it into two sentences.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his career, Rev. Woodbridge would receive honorary degrees ..." - Here and elsewhere I would have used a direct construction "During his career, Rev. Woodbridge received honorary degrees ..." but I daresay that is a matter of personal preference in literary style.
  • The word "synod" needs consistency in capitalisation.
  • Done (20SEP13) - I think I addressed each instance of its use.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Corwin, ..." - Perhaps you could add a phrase explaining who Corwin was.
  • Done (20SEP13) - identified him as a church historian.
  • Thank you for your attention to the article, please do let me know if there are any further issues.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Criteria[edit]

  • 1a The article is well written.
  • 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines.
  • 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations in an acceptable form for all contentious statements.
  • 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
  • 3a&b The coverage is broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
  • 4 The article is neutral.
  • 5 The article was created by the nominator recently and has hardly been edited by anybody else.
  • 6 The images are either in the public domain, having been created over one hundred years ago, or are appropriately licensed.
  • 7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
  • Overall assessment - Pass. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Why is this a Featured Article?[edit]

I usually defend FAs from people who question their legitimacy, but for once I have to join them for this one.

I don't really have a problem with the article's subject, but why is this considered an FA? I understand that the writing is sufficiently polished. I understand that it is well-sourced. Clearly the author has done his research. But what makes this an FA? What makes it 'Featured?' What makes it 'one of Wikipedia's best articles?' It doesn't say anything about why this man is notable. There are oodles of churches and seminaries in the Christian world, and they all have pastors or priests. He taught for a long time and produced several books. What did he write? How did he influence his field? Is or was he famous, if even within the narrow confines of New Brunswick? In short, what made the author choose him as a project? There's barely anything that could be remotely considered interesting in the article; the closest I can find is the quote from Corwin about his personality and teaching style.

I'm not saying it's a bad article; it might even qualify as a "good" one. But I think to be Featured an article should engage the reader at least a little. I'm willing to defend covered bridges in northern Pennsylvania, bogs in England, and suburbs in Australia; at least they have more pictures, or hints of interesting tidbits, or more detail. But if citations, prose and organization are all that count for a Featured Article, then we might need to split up that category, because there's no way an average reader would rank this in the same league as Middle Ages, or Campaign history of the Roman military, or Introduction to general relativity. Brutannica (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brutannica: - Sorry you were disappointed. I'll chalk it up to the fact that neither you nor I can please everyone all the time. For instance, while your work may interest you and some other readers, I have no interest in your work in Japan's juvenile protection process, Pokémon, or manga. FA's come in different shapes and sizes and topics...not all of them have to be 50-page behemoths, or articles about Australian military figures, hurricanes, Doctor Who trivia, celebutards, or mushrooms. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a featured article because it's the best that ColonelHenry, the principal editor of this article, and others (whether by editing or commenting upon the article when it's been under review) have been able to make it - and the level to which they got it was adjudged to be sufficiently well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable (by various people uninvolved in the article's creation and editing) to meet the FA criteria. The criteria do not include that articles must be "in the same league" (of importance? of impact? of what?) as other articles of the type you have mentioned. You may be thinking of WP:Vital articles instead. Your apparent view that we should only award FA status if the subject is a sufficiently important or interesting one is not one that is generally shared. If you want to change the criteria, though, please go to WT:FA? rather than complaining on the talk page of a particular FA that you happen to dislike. If you think that this article doesn't pass the threshold of notability, then feel free to take it to AFD (although be warned that some take the view that nominating featured articles for deletion is a type of disruptive editing since such attempts have never succeeded and a lack of sources showing notability would have become apparent in the FAC process). BencherliteTalk 17:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not saying that this subject isn't inherently interesting, or that it's not notable and should be deleted. I'm saying the way the article is written isn't very interesting. As it is, it can be broken down into "Woodbridge was born to this family. [Family details] Woodbridge went to these schools, joined these clubs, and earned these degrees. Woodbridge became a pastor. Woodbridge became a professor and taught these subjects. Woodbridge became a dean and then a president. Woodbridge retired. Woodbridge married and raised a family. Woodbridge died and was buried. [One quote on his personality] [A list of works]" This is fine for an ordinary article, but doesn't have anything else to pull the reader in. I'm pretty sure an ordinary reader would be left wondering why this particular figure is notable. As a basic example, he wrote a lot, but what did he write about? I don't think a list of titles suffices. Essentially, I think for biographical articles, some sense of how the subjects were influential is needed at least.
I didn't mean to make a personal attack of any kind; if Wikipedia were to get rid of its articles on obscure or dry subjects it wouldn't be the same (or as useful). But if FAs are supposed to be "the best work" of Wikipedia... I have a hard time seeing how something this bare-bones can compare with the sort of stuff I mentioned (in terms of writing quality and depth of research). Brutannica (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brutannica: - You're entitled to your opinion, but other editors disagreed with you and for good reason (which Bencherlite explained comprehensively above). So, there's no use continuing this discussion--and you can go on contributing to articles on manga and Pokémon that I will likely not care enough to read. To each his own.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this article when it was showcased on your main page. Yes, it is short, but it is well-written and covers all of the man's life. I'm just a casual reader, and I've seen some featured articles on famous people that looked endless. Length isn't everything; some of your featured articles could benefit from a trim or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrReaderEric (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Proposal for procedural FARs on ColonelHenry FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Samuel Merrill Woodbridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samuel_Merrill_Woodbridge&oldid=1210992887"