Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John W. Beschter/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2020 [1].

John W. Beschter edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 15:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Luxembourg Jesuit who became a missionary to the rural United States, and did a brief stint as president of Georgetown University. Ergo Sum 15:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

Sources are all high quality, their formatting is grand. Images are free. 1264 words, which is a bit short, but given the subject matter and the breath of sources used, seems very likely to be comprehensive. Note A needs a ref. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Doesn't it already have a ref? Ergo Sum 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ugg my eyesight isn't what it used to be. Anyway, have read through and made a few trivial tweaks...Support on prose and sources. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I will take a look at this. I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for the review.

  • Beschter was the last Jesuit pastor of St. Mary's Church in Lancaster, as well as the pastor of St. John the Evangelist Church in Baltimore, in addition to being a priest at several other German-speaking churches in Pennsylvania. - Lancaster is in PA but Baltimore is in MD. I think the latter should be made clearer. Otherwise we get the impression that Baltimore is in PA, based on the end of that sentence.
  • His ministerial work was punctuated by a time as master of novices - so he served as a "master of novices" in between his ministerial work?
  • in the Duchy of Luxembourg,[a][4] of the Austrian Netherlands, a part of the Holy Roman Empire.[5] - this looks strange because of the number of commas in the sentence. I'd consider rewording this, but have no suggestions so far.
    • I've cleaned up the sentence a bit. Ergo Sum 20:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • while in Lancaster County.[5] - should it be specified that this is in PA?
  • His second-most immediate predecessor, Francis Fitzsimons, was an Irishman who could not speak German, which ruffled the German majority of parishioners. Fitzsimons was quickly replaced by Herman J. Stoecker, who was not proficient in English, to the consternation of the Irish congregants. - This is fine as is. However, I was thinking an optional way to present this info is to swap these two sentences, so it's clear that Stoecker's predecessor was Fitzsimons.
  • By 1818, Beschter had fallen ill, and became involved in disagreements with Bishop Michael Egan of Philadelphia,[1] and so took up residence in Georgetown in Washington, D.C.[2] - I don't think the second comma (after "ill") is necessary
  • Devitt1911, p. 243 - There should probably be a space between "Devitt 1911" in this reference, unless there's a good reason
  • He defended the Jesuit Superior General, Luigi Fortis', appointment of Polish-born Francis Dzierozynski in 1820 as socius, consultor, and admonitor to Charles Neale (the mission superior for the United States), which vested Dzierozynski with broad authority. - this is another strange wording. I would suggest "He defended Jesuit Superior General Luigi Fortis' appointment ...".
  • His selection came as a surprise and was met with opposition by the Anglo-American laymen, who claimed Beschter was not fluent in speaking or writing in English[30] (despite the fact that he was competent enough to preach in English);[31] they further asserted that he had no knowledge of the operation of a college. - This is also technically fine, but normally I would suggest splitting it into different sentences.
  • and counted 45 enrolled students. - is this more than in the previous years?
    • The source suggests so, but without reading through the whole book, I can't find what it was prior to that. Ergo Sum 20:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is all the commentary I have. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Thanks for your comments. Ergo Sum 20:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another great article, as always. Can I interest you in taking a look at my own Featured Article nomination? You don't have to do so if you don't want to. epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • Upon his arrival in the United States, he was admitted to the Society of Jesus on October 10, 1807. Saying "Upon his arrival" makes it sound as though he was admitted on the same date that he arrived, but that seems unlikely. Would this be better as "On October 10, 1807, after arriving in the United States, he was admitted to the Society of Jesus"?
    • Rephrased to clarify the timeline. Ergo Sum 03:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on novitiate refers to a period of training, not to an institution. Is this a flaw in our article, or is there a better link?
    • It appears to be an slight inaccuracy in the novitiate article. Novitiate, especially in the Jesuit context, can refer both to the institution where the novitiate years are spent if it is a standalone institution (much more common in the past) or to the period of training itself. I can't say if the same is true for other religious orders. Ergo Sum 03:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1818, Beschter had fallen ill and became involved in disagreements with Bishop Michael Egan of Philadelphia, and so took up residence in Georgetown in Washington, D.C. Why "so"? Is there an implied "and had to leave his post" in the middle here?
    • The source suggests that he left as a result of both his illness and his disagreements with Egan. Is this not conveyed accurately by the sentence? Ergo Sum 03:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think what's bothering me is that you say "took up residence" elsewhere, not "left". I figured you had to mean that he left, but it doesn't actually say that; I wondered for a moment if he could have remained in his post at Frederick, but taken a new residence elsewhere. Making it "and so left his post, taking up residence" would fix it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've rephrased. I think that should remove any ambiguity. Ergo Sum 15:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On account of the tercentenary of Martin Luther: "on account of" is a slightly colloquial phrase. And it's not clear what it's the tercentenary of -- I'd guess the Ninety-Five Theses? Could we make this something like "The tercentenary of Martin Luther's proposal of the Ninety-Five Theses fell in 1817, prompting the publication of..."?
  • Is there a possible link for "gradus"? Or could we get a footnote explaining it?
  • assuming office on March 31 of that year: To me, "winter of 1829" means the winter of 1829-1830, but here it appears you mean 1828-1829. I didn't figure this out till I saw he was succeeded in September 1829; I think this should be clarified.
    • I've removed reference to the season. 1829 should be sufficient, since it is quickly followed by the exact date. Ergo Sum 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you also need to remove "late in", otherwise the ambiguity remains. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That year, Georgetown opened St. John's Literary Institution as an offshoot in Frederick, which was placed under the charge of John McElroy, and whose cornerstone was laid on August 7 of the previous year.: I'd avoid using "whose" for inanimate objects. How about "On August 7, 1828, Georgetown laid the cornerstone of St. John's Literary Institution, an offshoot of the University; it opened the following year, under the charge of John McElroy."?
    • I don't know if it makes good reading to split up the sentence here. In any event, "whose" is technically a correct possessive form of "which", notwithstanding the dissent of some modern grammaticists. I do love a good grammar discussion. Ergo Sum 04:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it's one of those things I avoid because it causes arguments, not because I think it's always wrong. Struck, since it's a matter of opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears Beschter was only president for five and a half months. Was he simply finishing Feiner's term of office, or was there some reason he was replaced so quickly?
    • I'm not entirely sure; I can't find a ref that indicates he was just finishing out his predecessor's term, but it's possible that was the case. Ergo Sum 04:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beschter returned to the Brandt Chapel at Paradise, Pennsylvania, which continued to be a mission of Conewago, where he lived out the remainder of his life: I'm not clear whether this means he lived out his life in Paradise or Conewago. From the next sentence I think it must be Paradise, but it would be helpful to rephrase this to be clearer.

These are minor points, and I expect to support once they're dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments. I believe I've responded to each. Ergo Sum 04:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

- spotchecks not done

  • What makes German Marylanders a high-quality reliable source?
    • I don't think there's anything wrong with it. But, regardless, I've tracked down the original source, and replaced it with that. Ergo Sum 03:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4: the county is the publisher in this case
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 02:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like Reily is still misplaced?
        • Quite right. Fixed now. Ergo Sum 19:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archived links and retrieval dates aren't required for book convenience links
  • Curran: it appears that what you've included as a subtitle is actually the volume title
    • I'm not sure about this. Every reference I've ever seen to it has been to it in the format I've listed. The "Academy..." bit is the name of the volume, but I've never seen it appear on its own without the "Bicentennial..." part in front of it. That's also the format I've done for 7 other FACs. Ergo Sum 02:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Checked Worldcat, KVC, Ottobib - none include it as part of the title, just as the volume title. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is this not the worldcat entry? Moreover, every book review I've seen (a couple examples: 1, 2, 3) include the bicentennial part in the title. That's also the name that is officially listed by sellers (e.g. 1, 2). Just to avoid any confusion, some of the results that come back are for the second edition of the book, which was published as part of a tripartite series, and the individual book titles don't include Bicentennial. The 1993 edition anticipated subsequent volumes, but those were never published (until being reworked as the 3 part series 20 years later); I think that makes the volume title part and parcel with the title of the work, no? Ergo Sum 19:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Devitt 1932 include page numbers in Sources and Devitt 1933 does not?
    • Added pages to the 1933 ref. Ergo Sum 02:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Häberlein: provided ISBN doesn't match that at the provided link
  • How does Lee meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a doctoral dissertation. According to bullet point 3 at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, doctoral dissertations that have been published, as this one has, are reliable. Ergo Sum 03:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what point 3 says. Does this particular thesis meet any of the points listed there as "If possible"? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't appear that the "if possibles" are requirements. Either way, it was supervised by a subject matter expert (the dissertation advisor) and appears (I'm not positive) to have gone through peer review (see here: ProQuest 3403480). Since the link in the article is to the original dissertation, I can swap it out for the ProQuest one, if that is better. Ergo Sum 15:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_W._Beschter/archive1&oldid=953583518"