Jump to content

Talk:Francis Gleeson (priest)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFrancis Gleeson (priest) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 21, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 15, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that of the 800 men who received Father Francis Gleeson's general absolution on 8 May 1915 (pictured), 389 were killed or wounded in the subsequent Battle of Aubers Ridge?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 28, 2024.

Congrats.....

[edit]

....on an interesting DYK!

Expression. The following sentences use the word "returned" repeatedly and could be better expressed.

At the end of his year's service in 1915 Gleeson returned to Dublin and became a curate but returned to the army in 1917 and remained for a further two years. After the war he returned to Ireland, becoming a priest at churches near to Dublin and being elected canon of the Metropolitan Chapter of the Archdiocese of Dublin before his death on 26 June 1959.

Amandajm (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Just noticed this and made a couple of changes to (hopefully) make it read better - Dumelow (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Francis Gleeson (priest)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 20:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, most on Monday, but I will be mindful of the nominator's comment that they are only able to address concerns on weekends. Canadian Paul 20:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Definitely meets the Good Article criteria, as there were only one or two minor issues that I fixed up myself. This is the first GA I've ever passed without putting on hold first, so congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 16:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Francis Gleeson (priest). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]