Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an American university president and Jesuit who had a fascinating life story. While in the Navy, he converted to Catholicism because he happened to recover a book that had fallen into the sea, read it, and began thinking about his religious beliefs. He then became a university professor and later the president of Georgetown University. Should this FAC pass, it will raise the presidents of Georgetown University good topic to featured topic status. Ergo Sum 14:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fond of university president articles (see here if you fancy giving my college president FAC a look) so I'm happy to review this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to give that a look this week. Ergo Sum 18:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"that accidentally came into his possession, and prompted him to become a Catholic" → remove comma
"His conversations with his shipmate convinced Whitney to consider" → pronouns are used for the first part of the sentence before switching back to his name - I'd keep it pronouns all the way through ("...convinced him to consider...")
When there are two people in a sentence who are referred to by the same pronouns, I find it is often best to be clear when there is potential ambiguity. Here, I think specifying Whitney is helpful to the reader. Ergo Sum 18:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given what is said about him in the article and for his presidency of Hobart College, I think a redlink for James Kent Stone would be reasonable
I agree. Done. Ergo Sum 18:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"He taught mathematics for a year, before returning" → remove comma
I don't think the dual link to Fordham University is necessary - in these sorts of cases, I usually leave the old name unlinked and just link the current name, but if you want to do the opposite that's fine
Fair point. I've removed the first link. Ergo Sum 18:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Georgetown University
"was opened, and the first patient" → remove comma
"That year, he also received a donation" → this may be picky, but did Whitney receive the donation or did Georgetown?
Fair point. I've clarified that it was the university. Ergo Sum 18:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason given as to why the dental school was eventually accepted into the school of medicine?
I am not able to find any explanation for the faculty's decision. Ergo Sum 18:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It would eventually become" → "It eventually became" per WP:WOULDCHUCK (which is an essay, but one that I particularly like)
I think there is a place for "would." In this instance, it suggests that it happen in the distant rather than immediate future, specifically outside the timeframe of Whitney's presidency. Ergo Sum 18:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Later years
"Whitney became the treasurer of Boston College in 1902, and held this post until 1907" → remove coma after "1902"
In the academic offices box near the bottom of the page, is there a reason why no successor prefect of St. Ignatius is listed?
The source does not identify who succeeded Whitney as prefect and I am not able to find any other source that does. Ergo Sum 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now, I'll circle back for another look when you're ready. As a note - I will likely be quite busy with real-life stuff tomorrow so I might not be able to get back to this until Thursday, but I will try to avoid keeping you waiting for too long. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple more things I spotted on my second read-through: "Whitney's tenure as president came to end" should be "came to an end", and I'd link Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians as part of the citation for George 1972. Also, the fact that he was specifically the 32nd president is not mentioned in the body of the article, so I think it would be good to include that with a source. All of my spotchecks looked good so it's just these things as far as I'm concerned, though I would fix the link to Easby-Smith so that the reference doesn't automatically open to pages 226-227; I'd say either have it open to the start of the book or to p.211 since that's the beginning of the page range mentioned in the citation. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed phrasing. Added journal link. The Easby-Smith link for me does already go to page 211. As for the number of his presidency, this has been a discussion on other FACs I've done for university presidents. It's often difficult to find a source that states the number of a particular presidency, and I'm of the opinion that it's one of those minor but useful details that need not be cited because it's evident and can be inferred from e.g. the List of presidents of Georgetown University. Ergo Sum 14:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes are good and the book link is fine since I realized it just opens to whichever page the user was last on, rather than going to 211 by default. I only brought up the ordinal of his presidency because it was brought up at my last FAC, where I was able to find a source but only because the source was specifically about her in its entirety, rather than just giving her a mention or a blurb. I'm okay with your reasoning (and might adopt your opinion on the subject as my own should I ever run into that on a nomination of mine in the future). Happy to support the FAC. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...where he became prefect of St. Ignatius Church. - not too familiar with religious titles, but is this missing "the" before prefect?
I think it's one of those titles that can have an article in front of it or none. Like "he was elected president" or "he was elected the president." I've added an article in the article. Ergo Sum 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Easby-Smith the only source with an OCLC? Not having ISBNs makes sense, but I'd be very surprised if the others didn't have OCLC numbers.
I insert OCLC identifiers only when an ISBN is not available. ISBN is a much more useful identifier but, in my opinion, the next best thing is OCLC. Ergo Sum 14:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Jesuits" article is linked twice in the lead.
The reason I did that is because one is linked from "Jesuits" and the other from "Society of Jesus". To those not familiar with the Jesuits or Catholicism, generally, it is not obvious that those two terms refer to the same thing. Ergo Sum 14:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps writing "Society of Jesus (Jesuit Order)" would resolve the issue? — Goldentalk 14:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is to leave it as is. Adding parenthetical asides in the lead, in my opinion, breaks up the flow of what is meant to be an overview section. I think the reader should be able to infer from the fact that he was a Jesuit (first sentence) and that he entered the Society of Jesus (later), in conjunction with those two links, that the two are the same organization. This is the setup I have used in other FAs. Ergo Sum 14:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any information at all about Thomas G. Whitney? What made the family prominent?
I am not able to find any additional information about this. Ergo Sum 14:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"His mother was a devout Congregationalist and he was raised in that faith." - To avoid repeating "his mother" in close proximity, you could rephrase the sentence as: "Esther was a devout Congregationalist and raised John in that faith."
Apologies for the delay on this. Harrias(he/him) •talk 15:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most citations are formatted consistently in an appropriate format for a FA, with just a couple of minor issues:
Does "Easby-Smith, James Stanislaus (1907)" needs the middle name written out; the source itself appears to just have "Easby-Smith, James S." Your call though. Also, there is no need for the page range to be given here, although again, it is no biggie.
I just put the middle name here because it seems like elsewhere, the author's name is usually written with the middle name. Ergo Sum 14:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In "Delany, Joseph F.; Farrelly, Stephen; Meehan, Thomas F., eds. (December 1917)" the "S.J." needs to be spaced out to "S. J." per our MOS.
I'm not familiar with an MOS provision concerning this. In the source here, S.J. contains no space, and the convention for post-nominal letters for Catholic religious orders, generally, and the Jesuits, in particular, generally do not put a space between the letters. Ergo Sum 14:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter, the MoS requires a space. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented the change, but can you point me to a spot in the MOS? I'm genuinely curious and would like to know for future reference. Ergo Sum 02:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't twigged that they were post-nominals. In the case of post-nominals, the MOS says they should only be included "at relevant places in the main body of a biography subject's own article, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as a list of recipients of an award or other honour". However, I gather they are part of the title of the article, so I would suggest that they should remain, but be styled as post-nominals normally as, such as in the lead of this article, without full-stops at all: "Necrology: Rev. John Dunning Whitney, SJ." Harrias(he/him) •talk 15:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources used individually appear to meet our criteria as reliable sources. However, I have a slight concern that the article is heavily based on sources which could have bias. The subject of the article was a Catholic priest and Jesuit notable as president of Georgetown University. The most heavily used source is the Woodstock Letters, a periodical publication by the Society of Jesus. Following that is what appears a history of Georgetown University written by someone from Georgetown University and an article from a journal published by the United States Catholic Historical Society. A further history of Georgetown University was published by Georgetown University Press, leaving only the "Catalogue of Loyola College, Baltimore" and "Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians", both of which support a single sentence each as independent sources. @FAC coordinators: I would appreciate some guidance on whether it is felt that this meets our requirements for sourcing. Harrias(he/him) •talk 15:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to register my two cents here: I have used the Woodstock Letters extensively in many other FAs and GAs without issue. With rare exception (which primarily only occurs in some of the very earliest WL issues), I have found them to be entirely neutral and balanced when it comes to factual accounts and I am frequently able to verify the facts with other sources. Of course, WL also contains some degree of eulogy in those articles that are obituaries, but I have not observed any of the factual portions to be inaccurate or slanted. Plus, in an article like this and other historical Jesuit academics I have written about, there are just very few sources that go into a lot of detail, so WL is usually the most detailed and extensive. Ergo Sum 14:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias (and @FAC coordinators: for information), I take your point and share your concern. Can I just check that we are all agreed that the sources used are all "high-quality". If so, then the MoS and the FAC criteria have little to say about how a series of individually acceptable sources may raise concerns in the aggregate. Assuming that there are no other HQ sources which could be used instead - especially for any more subjective parts of the prose - or which contradict - however subtly - the sources used, then ES has done the best they can with what there is. Which is what Wikipedia and FAC is about. Many academics have axes to grind, but we trust the editorial processes of the works in which they publish to keep them in check.
I generalise broadly here, so feel free to come back for further guidance/opinion/waffle. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many sources could be considered biased one way or another, but it is certainly not typical to source most of the material for a FA article to sources that are not independent or have a COI with the subject. I would not nominate an article for FAC if I could not source it from mostly independent sources. However, the difficulty with university related subjects is that a lot of the available sources are published by the university and/or its university press, etc. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe and Gog the Mild: my reading of the above is that although a legitimate question has been raised we're not seeing it as a barrier in this case to the source review passing (and leaving the way open to promotion, all other things being equal) -- is that a fair observation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I was attempting to communicate in my response. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
