Talk:William L. Keleher/GA1

GA Review

Failed.

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: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 21:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is larded with typographical and grammatical errors, and points of unclarity, and my requests for minor copyediting and clarification (in hopes of getting some of these issues fixed prior to a full GA review) were mostly reverted without cleanup (WP:GACR #1a). The bulk of the Boston College section is about events at Boston College with no information about Keleher's role in those events, and the bulk of the Feeneyism section is about events related to Feeneyism with only two lines about Keleher's role (GACR #3b). This would be ok as context for significant material about Keleher, but there is no significant material about Keleher that this provides context for, making the article very unbalanced. Other than this largely off-topic material, the article is very slim, with little information about Keleher; for someone who worked in academia for decades, it is remarkable that we have no idea even of the general topic of his academic expertise or teaching (GACR #3a). This almost entirely relies on a single source, and the library blog source based on a student project may not count as a reliable source (GACR 2b). The "Early life" section is very closely paraphrased from the single paragraph specifically about Keleher in the main source, Donovan et al., to the point where at least one of its sentences is completely identical, and the "later years" section is similarly close to the corresponding paragraph of the NY Times obituary (GACR 1d). The image is claimed to be PD based on being published before 1963 and not having its copyright renewed; although this claim looks very plausible, evidence that it was actually published before 1963 (and not merely made before 1963) should be provided (GACR 6a).

I don't think this was ready for a Good Article nomination; quick fail per WP:GAFAIL #1 (the copyediting issues can be dealt with, and expansion to an appropriate level of detail would likely settle the close paraphrasing issues, but I think it is a long way from meeting criterion 3). No prejudice against renomination if the article can be expanded to provide more substantive detail that is specifically about Keleher, at all stages of his life, and more thoroughly copyedited before renomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: I would have appreciated a moment to respond to some of your concerns before closing the nomination. There is nothing here that could not have been readily addressed in a GA review. But for reference in the eventual re-nomination, I have cleaned up the few typographical errors and rephrased a few things for cleaner flow. As for criterion 3, I would have mentioned that there simply is little other coverage of the subject's life that is not already discussed in the article. A biographical article cannot fail criterion 3 for want of detailed coverage that does not exist, and this has not proven problematic for dozens of other Jesuit academic administrator GAs I have nominated. As for the coverage of Feeneyism, it would not make sense to simply say he fired three teachers for advocating Feeneyism without discussing the preceding buildup of tensions in Boston and what Feeneyism was. I will renominate soon, but first I will enjoy my vacation. Ergo Sum 23:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here: Is there some reason you insist on having a disambiguation link in the article, having removed the [disambiguation needed] tag without actually doing the needed disambiguation? If you do think a disambiguation link is necessary, see WP:INTDABLINK for the correct way to make it apparent that it is intentional. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I ever insisted upon it! It is disambiguated now. Ergo Sum 00:37, 29 August 2023 (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.