Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Patrick Francis Healy/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2021 [1].

Patrick Francis Healy[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Francis Healy led a remarkable and fascinating life. He achieved many firsts for black Americans, yet never considered himself one. The historiography of this fact is most interesting and discussed in this article. He also transformed Georgetown University into a modern institution along the way. Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

So far, I am leaning Weak Oppose for the following concerns of incompleteness and problems with prose:

  • I've haven't researched the topic extensively, but I'm skeptical about this article's comprehensiveness. While other sources do get cited a few time each, most of this article is cited to Curran 1993 when there is much more literature to represent on this topic, including academic analysis. I find that this article is mostly just a bio of his life without opinions or analysis from outside sources about the impact of his work and why he is significant.
    • I have done a fair bit of research on Healy and have to disagree regarding comprehensiveness. The Curran book is cited only in the Georgetown presidency section, which makes sense because the Curran book is a detailed history of the history of Georgetown and therefore discusses Healy's presidency in detail. I have not come across any significant details of Healy's life that are absent from the article. I agree this article is just a biography of Healy; I don't claim otherwise. I'm not sure I know what other analysis of Healy you are referring to. All the meaningful analysis of his life that I've come across (primarily historiography of his race) is mentioned in this article. They all state approximately historiography, so citing to one reliable one is generally, I think, as good as citing to them all. Ergo Sum 22:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I understand. I'll admit my judgement was based on the amount of citations and what citations were cited. as well as the amount of results in the Google scholar search. If I was a bit ignorant in my response, my apologies. I would still recommended reading the literature in the search I linked to see if there's anything else to include.
        • Absolutely, I'll do that and seee if I come across anything. Ergo Sum 02:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Ref 1, it is not harv citation style to use the title of the article in the ref when there isn't an author. You have to use the work or publisher.
  • Watch out for non-neutral-point-of-view language. For example, "who was an important president of Georgetown University," and "Of them all, Patrick Healy most readily passed as White.[8] Indeed, his passport described his complexion as "light," suggesting he passed as a light-skinned White man, rather than a light-skinned Black man". " Healy experienced poor health, likely suffering from untreated epilepsy." likely to which researchers?
    • Respectfully, each of these is NPOV. These are all factual statements. None of them strike me as particularly controversial statements and they are all supported by reliable sources. Ergo Sum 22:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll clarify. Words and phrases like "important," "suggesting he passed" and "likely suffering" seem subjective. Whether person's race "passes" to another person seems to depend on someone's point of view. "Likely" indicates it's not definitely known, so personal interpretation is used to figure out probable solutions. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand where you're coming from. These are all things that can be debated because they are essentially one source's interpretation of the world. For example, how important a president he was can be debated. Yet, such claims can't automatically excluded. In articles, I think it's worth qualifying a claim as only "according to X" if there is actually scholarly debate on the subject, i.e. if experts disagree. Here, however, there are reliable sources that make the claims, the claims seem prima facie reasonable to me, and I have not seen any experts reject the claims or arrive at contrary conclusions. E.g. as far as I can make out, there's pretty unanimous consensus among historians that Healy passed as White; i.e. consensus that the world at that time viewed him as White, not that historians agree that he was as a matter of fact White. Ergo Sum 02:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are many terms in the body linked on their first mention but not Jesuit?
  • Para 2 of "Presidency" feels WP:EDITORIAL and non-encyclopedic in tone in places, and is also fluffy
    • I've rephrased some of the sentences that might be a bit editorialized. I'm trying to strike a balance between describing the grandiose plan that Healy/the bishops set out without endorsing this vision in Wikipedia's voice. What do you think of the new phrasing? Ergo Sum 22:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " until both of their deaths in 1850" --> "until both died in 1850"
  • " Michael Healy was prevented by Georgia law" which law?
    • None of the sources give an actual code citation. They just say that it was the law in Georgia. Ergo Sum 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I understand. Don't you love reliable sources that leave things vague, but you can't or clarify to reviewers because the source doesn't? I've experience that a lot.
        • It is certainly frustrating. Ergo Sum 02:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward sentences: "Despite his appearance and self-identity, speculation as to his race remained with him."
    • It doesn't strike me as awkward. (Then again, I wrote it, so naturally I wouldn't). What about it strikes you as awkward? Ergo Sum 23:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does it mean for a speculation to "remain" with him? Does it mean his race was still speculated in his later life and after his death? 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've rephrased the latter half to clarify. Ergo Sum 02:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1867, he professed his final vows" This sentence is too vague and is abrupt in the paragraph that it's in.
    • You'll have to help me out with the vagueness. I've linked "final vows," if that helps. Ergo Sum 22:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that helps. Plus previous sections establish he did first vows for a religious institution, so that helps too.
  • If Healy was considered the "second founder" of Georgetown, who was the first?
    • Ah yes, it would make sense to mention that. I've added it as a footnote. Ergo Sum 23:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed instances where full-sentence clauses are incorrectly separated by commas. For example: "As interracial marriage was prohibited by Georgia's anti-miscegenation law, Michael formed a common-law marriage with the 16-year-old Eliza in 1829" and "this proved less of a concern than the fact that because Healy's parents were never legally married in the eyes of the church, he was born out of wedlock"
    • These two sentences are grammatically correct. The commas offset dependent conditional clauses. I suppose they could be broken up into more than one sentence, but I'm generally in favor of keeping a sentence together if it is all concerned with one idea. Ergo Sum 23:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoops, there were small words I didn't notice at first that made me misread the sentences. Good catch, 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsection about Curricular reform does not introduce the reader properly to it. It starts with "Healy continued the reform of the curriculum he began as prefect." When did he begin reforming? Why does it start abruptly in the middle of curriculum reformation?
    • That section is titled Curricular reform, so I thought it would make sense to start with a discussion of curricular reform. The reform as prefect I was referring back to was his reorganization of classes. Ergo Sum 23:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Healy determined that Georgetown's most pressing need was to expand its physical facilities." Another not-so-good introduction to a paragraph. When and for what reasons did he determine this?
    • I've added a bit of detail I could glean from the source. Ergo Sum 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, HumanxAnthro. I believed I responded to each. Ergo Sum 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on the work, and thanks for responding to the comments. I'll admit I misread some things, and some of my comments were from a skimthrough, so I'll re-read it again. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanxAnthro: Have you had a chance to take another look at the article? Ergo Sum 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. My work on editing and reviewing other articles got in the way. I'm reading it now. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro I don't mean to pester. Just want to see if you've gotten a chance to give this a second look. Ergo Sum 00:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HumanxAnthro, I note that you have struck your oppose. I was wondering if you were intending to support - obviously there is no obligation to. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is being reviewed by other users, so I'll say Support since those comments are being addressed. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Patrick_Francis_Healy_solitaire.jpeg: the source provided is a "used by permission" note. Is this actually used by permission, or PD as claimed by the tags? If the latter, what was the first publication?
    • I've updated the tags and description. I'm not able to find it being published before 2003. I've left the bit about permission from Sweet because I have no way of confirming that and his account has not been active in 15 years. It may very well be true and possibly permission was given before OTRS was a thing (not sure when that was set up). Ergo Sum 01:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This appears to have been published in This Week in Black History in 1998. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for finding that. I have removed the infobox image and replaced it from one lower in the article. Sadly, this result is necessitated by convoluted and retrograde US copyright laws. Ergo Sum 17:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Patrick_Francis_Healy_portrait.jpg: what steps have been taken to investigate publication history? Ditto File:Patrick_Francis_Healy.jpg
    • I have searched Google, the Library of Congress, and the Georgetown University Archives. Ergo Sum 01:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The latter appears to have been published here.
        • Since that publication contains no copyright notice and I find no copyright registration, I believe it is PD and have updated the tag accordingly. Ergo Sum 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Healy_Hall_early_rendering.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corrected the tag. Work made for hire >120 years ago and not published before 2003. Ergo Sum 02:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Coffeeandcrumbs[edit]

  • "came to own" → "owned"
  • "who Michael Healy had purchased" -- why is this here? Is it self-evident if she was his "slave" that he "purchased" her. I also do not see it in the source cited, it is in O'Connor 1955, p. 175
    • It was possible to inherit slaves, to be gifted them, etc. It's not an incredibly important point, but it just makes clear that Healy had purchased her. Fixed the ref. Ergo Sum 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "common-law marriage" -- not in the source cited, it is in O'Connor 1955, p. 175
    • Thank you for catching this. Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy" -- strange, can we use the word "doctorate"
    • It does strike my ear as a bit odd, but I think it's a fairly important point. There are non-PhD doctorates and even non-PhD doctorates in philosophy, such as ScD, DLitt, applied doctorates, and who knows how many new non-PhD degrees that are called doctorates. Plus, there is a lot of variance of names for doctorates around the world and by time period. The source refers only to the PhD, so while most likely that he also received the first doctorate at all, it is not certain and cannot be extrapolated. Ergo Sum 18:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have written this like so: "On July 26, 1865, he received a Ph.D. in philosophy, making him the first Black American to earn a Ph.D.". Not a big deal but the repetition of philosophy sounded strange in my ear. The Ph.D. would be repeated but there is some distance. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that makes sense. Tweaked. Ergo Sum 04:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[To be continued] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "at the time in that neither" -- "At the time" may work better as the very beginning of the sentence.
  • "ever married anyone else, and after marriage" -- the comma here belongs after "and" ... actually the phrase "after marriage" is unnecessary since we already said three times in that paragraph that they were married. The phrase "the rest of their lives" is enough to convey the meaning.
  • "after graduating, Healy entered ..." -- Probably better to start a new sentence with this phrase and combine with the next sentence about the novitiate.
  • "because Healy's parents..." -- would need a comma before this phrase. another option is to put a en/emdash before it and another en/emdash instead of the comma after "law of the church".
    • I've rephrased the whole sentence because on re-reading it, it sounded clunky and confusing. I thinks it's much clearer now. Ergo Sum 04:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While under canon law, this required that Healy obtain a dispensation to join the order, none was ever sought and he was admitted without issue."
-- Without a coordinating conjunction, this is a run-on sentence. This should be two sentences or add "but" or "however" etc. before "none was ever sought...".
  • "In 1858, Healy went to Georgetown ..." -- This should be part of the next paragraph, or merge the two paragraphs
  • Library of Congress (LOC) says "study philosophy and theology". You say "taught". Why?
    • I've checked LOC and it says study, so I think that was a typo on my part. I've fixed it. Ergo Sum 04:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we believe LOC that he went to Rome and not believe UCLA that he went to "Saint-Sulpice Seminary in Paris, France"?
    • I overlooked the mention of the Sulpician seminary. It was customary for American Jesuits at this time to send a promising student to one of the Roman universities, so it must be that he went to Rome first and then to Paris. I've clarified this in the text. Ergo Sum 04:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "philosophy, and decided" -- this comma seems unnecessary

[Apologies for the sporadic pace. I have little free time these days.] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "properties it owned in Washington" -- when appearing next to Virginia and Pennsylvanian, saying Washington could be interpreted as the state. Curran must have meant DC, right? or did Georgetown own land in Washington (state)? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Patrickneil[edit]

  • Support with some comments:
    • In the middle paragraph of the lead, I think we loose who "he" is in "Healy's father sent him north... and he continued...", maybe that is a spot for the passive voice, i.e. "Healy was sent north by his father and later continued..." in order to keep Healy as the sentence subject, rather than Healy's father. Either that or something like "Healy's father sent Patrick north" would help.
    • The next sentence starts "He then returned to Georgetown..." but we haven't established that Healy had been to Georgetown previously. Did we loose a sentence about him teaching there? Maybe "returned to America" or "to Washington, D.C."? Or "He taught at schools in Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia, including Georgetown, where was was named chair of philosophy in 1866."?
    • "Healy became the president" could afford a better verb, like "Healy was elected" or "selected". Maybe "promoted" would reference his trajectory through chair, prefect, and vice rector?
    • There's a couple times were the article uses the term "the North" where it could be more specific, like "New York and New England".
      • I'm only seeing three instances of it, and each one does refer broadly to the north such that narrowing it would be less accurate. Ergo Sum 03:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand the meaning, I just think there's most specific options, "northern states without slavery", for example. It's just imprecise, like Maryland and Delaware were "northern" but still had slavery then. I guess I also find it a bit strange there is zero mention of the Civil War on the article. Perhaps at the start of the Georgetown University section we could say "In 1866... at Georgetown University, whose student body had been devastated by the effects of the American Civil War" or mention it was happening while Healy was at Louvain, like "On July 26, 1865, a month after the Civil War ended in America, Healy received..."?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that does seem to be a glaring omission. I've added a mention of the Civil War at the start of the Georgetown section. The trouble with saying something like the "slavery-free North" is that though less common than in the South, there was slavery in the North too. Ergo Sum 14:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right, that's what I'm saying. Healy wasn't just sent to "the North" but to specific "northern states where slavery had been abolished or never allowed." I know this is obvious to you and me, but I think we want to keep it clear to the reader that the absence of slavery is what differentiates the states, either by naming them or by describing them as such.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps you could suggest the precise wording? My logic is that it starts out with the North and then proceeds to specify exactly where in the north: New York and then Massachusetts. That just reads naturally to me. Ergo Sum 19:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the eyes of the church" might be a common colloquial, but there could be a more encyclopedic phrase, "under church rules" or just "never married in a church".
    • You probably know this better than me, but when referring to the school in 1850 or 1858, is "Georgetown College" or "Georgetown University" better? Seeing as it's him who worked to make it a university, and "University" doesn't get added to the official name till a good bit later, is using "University" a convenience for readers, or would he have actually called it "Georgetown University"? I hate to add more to the "Notes" section at the bottom, but maybe it could be clarified that way.
      • This is a sticky issue. The point at which it switched from Georgetown College to Georgetown University is somewhat up for debate. I've seen some sources that put it as early as 1815 (the year the college was chartered). Legally speaking, there was no such institution known as "Georgetown University" until 1966, and indeed some documents, especially legal ones, routinely refer to it as Georgetown College up until then. However, many sources start using university much earlier. The mid to late 19th century is when it first enters common circulation. So, for purposes of clarity, I've just made all references to "Georgetown University." Ergo Sum 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then maybe we can add a modifier in the second paragraph of the Presidency section where the article describes Healy's goal of transforming Georgetown into a "university". Perhaps "into a modern university", or a "cohesive university", or a "liberal arts university"? Like Healy can't be transforming it into a university if we've already called it that.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Touche. I've added a clarifier. Ergo Sum 14:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the 1960s and 1970s" might be better specified as "by 1973".
      • I'm not sure when in the 60s thee university began identifying Healy as black, and the gap between (potentially) 1960 and 1973 is pretty big. I think a reader might be better off knowing that sometime in the 60s is when it first started. Ergo Sum 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think some of the facts in the first paragraph of "Georgetown University" might be out of chronology, unless it's intentionally summarizing the subsections or something. "On May 23, 1873, he also became the vice rector of the university" for example seems to be duplicated as the first sentence of the Presidency section. I assume "vice rector" and "acting rector" mean the same thing, but maybe the article should pick one.
      • Thanks for catching this. I've chronologized and removed the duplicate sentence. Ergo Sum 03:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article first mentions that he "established an alumni society" before he was president, while Early's health "began to fail" (maybe date that to 1872?), but then eleven paragraphs later says "in 1880, Healy re-established Georgetown's alumni association". Same with creating the Merrick Debate Medal and then six paragraphs later saying the Merrick Debate was established in 1875.
      • I went back and took a look at the sources. I had gotten confused on the timeline because one source said he did these things as prefect while another said he did them as president. I then realized that there was a period of time where he was both prefect and president, so I've rearranged the text accordingly. Ergo Sum 04:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, the O'Connor source says ending the reading in the refectory occurred "before the Christmas holidays in the first year of his rectorship", i.e. December 1873, so shouldn't that go after Early dies in May 1873?
      • He didn't become rector until 1874. But, regardless, I've moved that text per above to the curricular reform section. Ergo Sum 04:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paragraph about Healy's poor heath, right now at the bottom of the "Presidency" section, might better start the "Later years" section to keep chronology. Or perhaps the first sentence, "Throughout his presidency Healy experienced poor health", could be tacked into the bit about him sailing to San Francisco, where his health is also mentioned.
      • Moved it to the Later years section. Ergo Sum 04:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep up the great work!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Modussiccandi[edit]

Early life

  • "one of whom was Patrick's mother, Mary Eliza Smith, who Michael Healy had purchased" - would "whom Michael Healy had purchased" not be preferable?
    • Added a bit of detail that required rephrasing. Ergo Sum 22:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while two of his brothers would also become priests" - I find the "also" superfluous. At this point, it hasn't been stated in the body that Healey would become a priest. As it is, "also" could be construed as referring to the sisters. Anyway, I think it can be left out.

Education

  • "... and at the time of his death in August 1850, he also intended to join them" - again, I think the "also" is not needed.
  • Image caption "Portrait of Healy seated" - can anything more be said about the image? The description says it's from 1877. Now, I don't know if this is reliable but it could be added for context. I always think it's nice to be able to gauge what part of a person's life a photo belongs to.
    • Unfortunately, I cannot find anything else out about it. Ergo Sum 22:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Racial identity

  • "Under the one-drop rule" - the term is linked but I think some sort of explanation in the article would help. Maybe a footnote or a relative clause could do the trick. I'm quite unfamiliar with the topic of racial legislation, so do tell me if I'm underestimating the general American reader.
    • Added a brief explanation of the rule. What do you think? Ergo Sum 22:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was a resurgent interest in his history" - is this his history as in "familial (i.e. genetic) history" or his biography in general?
    • It's not really clear from the source. Ergo Sum 22:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University

  • "The following year, he became the prefect of schools" - this statement might need more context. The link to "prefect" doesn't entirely explain what this office was. You don't need to add much here; just a brief explanation would do.
    • With many of the other Georgetown presidents, I've simply left it as prefect with a link because I haven't been able to pin down exactly what the job of the prefect was. It seems that it was a position unique to Jesuit universities in the United States during this time period and had a fair bit of variation depending on who held the office. So, sadly, I can't give a good explanation. Ergo Sum 22:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency

  • "In a very unusual arrangement, he continued to hold the role of prefect until 1879, simultaneously with the office of president" - the source calls the arrangement "a notable fact". I think "very unusual" is adding too much to what the source intends to say.
  • "a great Catholic university in the United States" - I noticed that the source presents the "great" part as a quotation. You could consider reflecting this in the article.
    • I had considered that initially. My worry was that putting great in quotes makes it seem like it raises issues of MOS:DOUBT. I agree that leaving it without quotes is cause of a double-take, but having a ref to turn to provides some safeguard. Ergo Sum 22:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The demographics of the student body underwent change during Healy's tenure" - perhaps just "changed"?
    • As a general matter, I'm all for avoiding unnecessary turns of phrase, but here I think it does add a little something. Suggests a gradual transition as opposed to immediate. Ergo Sum 23:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption "Line drawing of Healy" - again, it might be possible to find a bit more context for the caption
    • Sadly, the Shea book does not give any more detail. Ergo Sum 23:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An entrance exam was given for the first time to applicants" - consider something like "For the first time, applicants were required to sit an entrance exam".
  • "He and Keller" - why not "they"?

Later years

  • "Returning to Georgetown in February 1882" - If the health crisis happened after he returned to Georgetown, I would write "having returned".

An interesting and well-built article on what seems to be an important person in the history of American higher education whom I had never heard of before. I'm happy to support in principle. Have a look at my (nitpicky) comments, Ergo Sum, and let me know if I'm way off on something. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will reply shortly. Ergo Sum 13:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thorough feedback, Modussiccandi. Ergo Sum 23:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing these. Don't worry about the image captions. I've been affected by this myself numerous times. I'm quite happy with the explanation of the one-drop rule, too. I will switch to support now. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Citations:

Sources:

  • Curran 1993 — Retrieval dates don't add anything for printed matter. You might link Georgetown University Press.
    • I always include retrieval dates when there is a courtesy link to e.g. Google Books, just in case the Google Books link becomes broken at some point. Ergo Sum 20:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this instance, all the retrieval date really says is when you read the book, which doesn't really matter; it doesn't matter if you read the book in 1993, in 2000, or 2015, because it has been the same for the last three decades. By contrast, a website may change from day to day, so it is important to know which version is being relied on. But at least there's no harm in the retrieval dates. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeLaney 1995 — Ph.D. theses sometimes get pushback in terms of reliability, although this is only cited once. Does the thesis mention its source for the claim, and is that something you can add too? Also, what does "Paper 1539623870" mean?
    • Yes, I'm cautious to use dissertations. Here, I think it's a reliable one because it was supervised by a recognized specialist in the field, and the author himself is now a recognized specialist (assistant professor at a notable university). Ergo Sum 20:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does "Paper 1539623870" mean? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not really sure. I just added it because it seems to be a unique identifier William & Mary uses to identify its dissertation papers. It's not very important. If you think it should be removed, I can do that. Ergo Sum 18:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foley 1954 — Retrieval dates don't add anything for printed matter. You might link Farrar, Straus and Young
  • Gollar 2004 — You might link The Catholic Historical Review.
  • Hollister 1998 — Retrieval dates don't add anything for printed matter.
  • Horgan 1964 — Perhaps you should use {{cite journal}} instead, since the volume/issue/pages formatting renders inconsistently here. Also, retrieval dates don't add anything for printed matter.
    • I don't like the formatting of {{Cite magazine}}; I think it should probably be merged into cite journal. But, while we have it, it should probably be used when citing to magazines. Ergo Sum 20:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might link Woodstock Letters. Also, retrieval dates don't add anything for printed matter.
  • Sullivan 2002 — Retrieval dates don't add anything for printed matter.

Further reading:

  • Foley 1955 — Retrieval dates don't add anything for printed matter, let alone for sources you're not citing. Looks like this was Farrar, Straus & Co (the "& Co" is currently omitted), and it could take a piped link to Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Is this anywhere online besides Google Books snippet view?
    • Done. Not that I can find, because it's still in copyright. Ergo Sum 20:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foley 1976 — ISBN not hyphenated.
  • Newman 1999 — harv error.
    • I'm not seeing an error when I preview it. Which error do you see? Ergo Sum 20:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It says "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFNewman1999". Perhaps you need a script to see it? Basically it means that the template is set up for sfn footnotes, but that nothing points to it. I've added "ref=none" as a parameter to the template (and for Shea 1891), which fixes it; the other works in this section already had that parameter. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • O'Toole 2003 — You might link University of Massachusetts Press.
  • Shea 1891 — harv error.
    • Likewise, I'm not seeing an error. Ergo Sum 20:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed as of this version. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review, Usernameunique. Ergo Sum 20:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This looks about ready to close but will await Usernameunique's response re. the source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild, Ian Rose, & Ergo Sum, they look good. I've added a few comments above, and one question for Ergo Sum. But I don't think there's anything that should hold up promotion if the article is otherwise good to go. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed the above comments. Ergo Sum 14:16, 22 May 2021 (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/Patrick_Francis_Healy/archive1&oldid=1024576692"