Talk:George Zurcher

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that George Zurcher was suspended as a Catholic priest for six years because he gave a critical homily on All Saints Day 1899? Source: 6 years homily summary
  • ALT1: ... that George Zurcher's third book, Monks and their Decline, was banned by the Catholic church? Source: banned
  • ALT2: ... that prohibition advocate and Catholic priest George Zurcher criticized Saint Vincent Archabbey for brewing Saint Vincent Beer? Source: choice qote from the book
  • ALT3: ... that that George Zurcher wrote Foreign Ideas in the Catholic Church in America to expose the influence of German-Americas in the Catholic church?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur J. Ruhlig

Created by Guerillero (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 40 past nominations.

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC).

• Article is new enough, well-written and well-sourced, and passes Earwig. QPQ checks out. Hooks are all sourced and interesting. Preference towards ALT2. Nihil obstat. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:George Zurcher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Guerillero (talk · contribs) 11:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: HollowGannet (talk · contribs) 10:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is my first article review, so if anyone wanted to add any comments or double check they agree with me then I would appreciate that. But the article has just passes DYK and from the criteria I believe it passes GA too. So I am recommending it as a pass.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   It is clear, readable, structured. I have made a few brief changes for flow etc. But on the whole I think its in a good place.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Good, reliable references for all. Lead doesn't have many references, but as per WP:CITELEAD they are cited further down. No original research. Has passed earwig.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Its a biography, covers his life, but also brad in its detail of his anti-alcohol advocacy. I think it passes this without going overly detailed. It might go into quite a lot of detail of his life, but all closely related to his advocacy and books. Anyone interested enough in him to research him would find all the information useful, relevant and would want that detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral and not a BLP.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I did do a search to look for a better image of him, but couldn't find anything. The one in the article is dark and grainy, but the only available image and the best option we have.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Infobox

I don't see what an infobox adds to this article that isn't covered by the first paragraph. I am especially worried that it verges into a WP:DISINFOBOX due to the complexities of his work. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You should give this a read: WP:LII, is says "All else being equal, every article about an individual person, individual object, or individual entity will contain an infobox." and "The principle essentially states that an article on Wikipedia would contain at least one infobox if its topic is a token (an individual person, object, or entity).". I will restore it back to good article status, with a infobox as is normal in a article about an individual. And before you reply, remember WP:OWN. HollowGannet (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

That is an essay. There is no requirement for an infobox in policy. Per MOS:VAR, the style choices of the first author, such as a lack of an infobox, should be maintained unless their is a consensus in the other direction. The lack of inclusion when it was put up for GA was a stylistic choice based on the article. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

So should I revert the good article status then?

I hate to break it to you, but you DO NOT OWN this article. It is not yours. And you have no claim over it, regardless of whether you started it.

You say it's an essay. Well, your article you linked to of wp: disinformation is also an essay, in fact an essay that there are two essays refuting it.

So you don't you try and play word games with me. Already you have tried to claim I am in the wrong for reverting an edit without taking it to talk, when in fact (if we went by your rules) it should have been you that took it to talk.

It is a the very basic standard to have an infobox on a biography and you are in the minority if you think there shouldn't be. And I think you need to learn to live with that. HollowGannet (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The manual of style is crystal clear that infoboxes are completely optional. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)