# Talk:Francesco Zirano

Hello RecycledPixels, looking at the article because of the GA nomination, I was wondering which of the sources used are independent of the subject. At first glance, there seem to be little to none. Did you consult any secular sources about the subject?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 07:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham;  Not sure what you are asking.  Zirano was a Catholic priest, and the sources of material in the article were from Catholic articles and research, and publications about the subject matter, probably written by Catholics. There are secular sources about more recent events such as the beatification, but unfortunately, when writing about a 16th century roman catholic priest, there aren't going to be too many secular sources available.   RecycledPixels (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
RecycledPixels, just wondering: did you check Google Scholar or another search engine for scholarly articles?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Definitely, but nothing there that I recall.  RecycledPixels (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that the article contains much interesting material worthy of study and worthy of bringing to GA standards, but not having independent sources cast doubts about whether the GA process is feasible. It also implies that an article is not notable, per definition. It seems odd that that would be the case. I have seen editors find independent sources for other articles less likely to have them, such as the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan, which i have helped review. See also Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan#Independent sources?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 12:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess my confusion stems from your use of the phrase "independent source".  Wikipedia defines an independent source as "a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective.  Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)."    I don't see how any of the sources that are used in the article have any vested interest or have anything to gain from the subject matter other than most of them are sources affiliated with various Catholic institutions who are writing about a topic of interest to Catholic readers.   Let me know where you see the problem.  RecycledPixels (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
In my experience writing about Buddhism, including the views of secular scholars helps to create an outsider's perspective. This has also proven to be the case in the article about the LDS community above. But never mind that, you will probably find someone who is willing to do the GA review with only Catholic sources. See you around!--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 12:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey there! I also stumbled upon this wonderfully written page for the GA nomination. Maybe the “life” section should be restructured into multiple ones so it can be more easily navigated? May I suggest starting from “early life” to “death” (or perhaps “martyrdom”)? Nemoschool (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)