Talk:Ignace Bourget

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ignace Bourget/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Two found, one fixed[1]. I could not resolve Joseph Michaud as none of the three possible targets fits. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   and in 1837 was named co-adjutor bishop of the newly created bishopric of Montreal. I think the term "co-adjutor" needs explanation here.

   he was conferred minor orders by Joseph-Octave Plessis, Archbishop of Quebec, "he was conferred" is ungrammatical.

   completed on September 22, 1825 and consecrated by Archbishop Plessis, and Bourget was named chaplain. This role gave him responsibility for organising the pastoral ministry of St-Jacques Abbreviations are not acceptable, should be "Saint-Jacques"

   In June/July 1838 and in May–July 1939, Bourget toured the bishopric, visiting around 30 parishes Consistency, use a dash rather than a slash.

   with the result of a new hospital servicing the Saint-Hyacinthe area. "result of"?

   to staff the schools, missions and parishes occasioned by Canada's burgeoning population. "occasioned by"?

   The invitation was accepted and the next several years saw an influx of religious congregations into Montreal, "the next several years"?

   On June 12, 1844, the ecclesiastical province of Quebec was erected by papal bull, "erected by"?

   On May 1, 1845, Bourget directed Rosalie Cadron-Jetté, a widow of his St-Jacques congregation, can't be a widow of a congregation.

   I would you to go through this line-by-line to render into good plain English, with unfamiliar words, especially clerical ones, explained. Wikilinking alone is not enough.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References appear Ok, RS, no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Possibly a little too much detail in this article. Consider summary style rather than over detailed accounts.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Although opponents, both religioyus and secular are mentioned, the artcile seems to very much written from the subject's point of view. This may be caused by over-reliance on two sources, Philippe (2000) & Bruchési (1913).

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Licensed and captioned

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for the points above to be addressed

   Seven days have passed, the only editing has been to add a redlink. As the issues raised have not been addressed, I shall not be listing. Please renominate when these issues have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Big text