Talk:Agnes Mary Mansour

Agnes Mary Mansour has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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
Date	Process	Result
December 17, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 2, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Sister Agnes Mary Mansour left the Sisters of Mercy after three decades of service rather than make a statement against abortion?

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 17, 2017.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Abortion

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 22:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Where is the lead? Regarding the prose, there are a couple of minor things I will fix.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~That one {{citation needed}} tag needs to be addressed.~~
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I have an issue with the sentence "Unusually, Bevilacqua sent a letter directly to Mansour without communicating his intention to President Kane or any of the Detroit leaders of the Sisters of Mercy." The word "unusually" seems to be adding some bias. If it's not usual for him to have done this, perhaps more information on what is normal protocol would be helpful.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
~~The image needs a caption~~
Overall: This is a good article, with the exception of the lead, which is woefully short and does not incorporate the most defining issue of her life. The lead needs to be expanded per MOS:LEAD. I'll put this on hold for improvements.
Pass/Fail:

Okay, I will consider the problem and expand the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put an image caption in place, I replaced a fact tag with a cite, and I believe I addressed the "unusually" issue, explaining it to the reader. I'm still considering the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing those issues. All that's needed now is an expansion of the lead. What is already there can stay, but there needs to be discussion of the controversy regarding the abortion stance. If I can ask a favor, please try to have this done by Thursday December 22 at the latest, because after that I'll be traveling with minimal access to a computer. I'd like to close this before I leave. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I lengthened the lead section. Let me know if it needs further tweaking. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do. I can pass this as a good article now. Well done. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fine review, especially for not tossing the nomination out after seeing the two tags! Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agnes Mary Mansour. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150216220911/http://sturdyroots.org/PDFs/VOC/VOC_NYTimesAdpdf.pdf to http://sturdyroots.org/PDFs/VOC/VOC_NYTimesAdpdf.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not scientist

She had a degree in chemistry but no evidence she ever practiced as a scientist. If WPWS consensus disagrees with this, switch it back. --JBVaughan (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]