Talk:1838 Jesuit slave sale/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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: Vice regent (talk · contribs) 00:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ergo Sum, I'll read this article and review it in the next few days.VR _talk 00:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my review:

1. Well written.

The article is well written, sentences flow easily. The size of both the article and the lead are appropriate. However, the lead should be 2-3 paragraphs, not 5, as per MOS:LEADLENGTH. I suggest merging the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, and merging the 4th and 5th paraphs. VR _talk 04:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never liked the paragraph-based rule. I understand the need to keep the length of the lede proportionate with the body, but sometimes it just doesn't make sense to combine certain things into the same paragraph. I've done a substantial trim of the lede and have gotten it down to four paragraphs. I think it is a more appropriate length now, but would hesitate to combine the existing paragraphs any further because they each deal with four very different topics. Ergo Sum 22:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and MOS:LEADLENGTH numbers are "suggestions", so I think what we have now is fine.VR _talk 05:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problematic wordings. I fixed something I found slightly insensitive, but overall I think neutrality as been maintained. VR _talk 04:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 Verifiable

Every sentence outside of the lead has an inline citation, and I WP:AGF that the sources are cited correctly. The sources look reliable. However, I wonder if Curran's 1993 book is an WP:INDEPENDENT source given it is published by the Georgetown University Press and the events of the article happened at Georgetown University. Ergo Sum can you clarify? Or maybe we can seek outside opinion at WP:RSN? VR _talk 04:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite confident the book counts as a high-quality, reliable source. At the time the book was published, Curran was a professional historian and professor of history at Georgetown. As the foreword of the book indicates (and, I believe, as is evident from the quality of the book), the written history of the university was undertaken with a deliberate objectivity, in contrast to some written histories of the university from the preceding two centuries, which tended to be somewhat more hagiographic. It is my opinion that this book should be considered an objective, scholarly work, rather than simply an internally produced university history that would be used for marketing or non-scholarly, sentimental purposes. Also, for what it is worth, I've cited it prolifically in many successful featured articles. Ergo Sum 22:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation and I think it makes sense. But just to be 100% sure, I've posted this at RSN[1].VR _talk 05:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this response, I agree the source is reliable.VR _talk 15:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 Broad coverage

The coverage seems broad enough. The article covers the historical facts, includes multiple perspectives, and also considers the enduring legacy of these events. I would have, however, liked a more detail explanation of moral issues surrounding the events as it is clear that the sale was controversial back then as it is now. The article mentions the controversy but doesn't expand in sufficient detail why exactly the sale was so controversial. But this is just my perspective and perhaps this can be resolved before the article is nominated for FA.VR _talk 04:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the contemporaneous opinions on the morality of the sale, there are only so many written accounts, and those have largely been addressed in the modern, scholarly second sources which have already been cited in the article. I wouldn't want to synthesize or speculate, so I'm afraid there is not a whole lot more that can be said. Based on what is already written, I don't think it's too hard for the reader to infer the details of the morality debate. Ergo Sum 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair.VR _talk 05:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 Neutral

As mentioned above the article gives attention to various perspectives. The words used are neutral and the article does not pass judgement on anyone but explains others' views on the events. That is what neutrality is all about.VR _talk 04:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly was not an easy task! I appreciate the comment. Ergo Sum 22:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5 Stable

The article is stable. There was some merger discussion in 2018 but that was years ago and currently there are no disputes regarding the article.VR _talk 04:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6 Illustrated

The article is well illustrated. I don't see any copyright issues with the 6 images in the body (plus 8 in the lead). VR _talk 04:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Vice regent. I've addressed some of your comments above. Ergo Sum 22:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed the GA nomination.VR _talk 15:17, 26 January 2022 (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.