Talk:Knights of Columbus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) 17:14, 11 July 2012 (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):
Lede hardly mentions the group's history or political activities. It should also make note of its affiliation with other groups and something about the degrees of members.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Biggest problem with this article is all the uncited material. I have tagged the general area where I would like to see more citations.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I think the Canada Hall section is a bit more than necessary, but not enough to fail the criteria.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Describes the issues without taking sides, presenting information that can be favorable or unfavorable.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
I feel I need to say that, while my reading of the discussion about the Cristero War comment is that there is no consensus on whether to include the material, the IP's actions do not appear to be part of any legitimate content dispute and it appears there is legitimate agreement to reserve the dispute to constructive discussion on the talk page.
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):
I improved the captions used for the two images in the section about the Fourth Degree, but the others seem suitable.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The lede and citation issues are not too cumbersome I think for this to be resolved quickly so I will put a final decision on hold so there can be improvements.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Comments

Thank you for doing the GA Review. I agree with most of what you list but I am not sure about "It [Lead] should also make note of its affiliation with other groups and something about the degrees of members." I am not sure what you mean by "affiliation with other groups", Do you mean mentioning how it is affiliated with the Catholic church? Do you mean how it interacts with similar organizations listed in the final section? Do you mean how it interacts with politically opposed parties? Do you mean just mentioning the fact that it is a "member of the International Alliance of Catholic Knights"? or something else? As for "the degree of members" I am not sure how important that is for the lead. Yes, 4th degree is mentioned because they are the most visible with their capes, swords, hats, etc. but the difference between 3rd and 4th degree is minor, a 3rd degree Knight is considered a full membership Knight and the difference between all the degrees is really just what initiation ceremonies the person has seen. I am not real sure what warrants inclusion in the lead other then maybe a statement similar to "Membership in the Knights consists of 4 degrees, each exemplifying a principle of the Order."Marauder40 (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the "Similar organizations" section is what I was referring to, and I feel that can be dealt with in a single sentence or as part of another sentence. Your wording there with degrees seems sufficient for the purpose of summarizing that material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I have found two different references for these quotes "Today the Order offers a modern, professional insurance operation with more than $80 billion of life insurance policies in force as of June 2011.", "The Order holds $16 billion in assets and had $1.8 billion (as of August 2010) in revenue and $71 million in profits in 2005." The one with the latest figures is a self published reference [1]. The other is with older numbers and isn't self-published [2]. I personally am not sure which is best, is it better to have the latest figures, but self-published and maybe add a disclaimer or go with the older figures. I am not sure whether this fits under the allowed exceptions for using self-published sources.Marauder40 (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a recent third party source: [3].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw that one but wasn't sure it counted far enough into the 3rd party realm. Unless Lionelt has more changes to make, I think we have addressed all the issues mentioned in your review. I think most of the stuff that he removed concerning protocol and stuff like that is just fluff and doesn't really need to go back in. I can easily find sources for most of it, but I don't think it is important to an outsiders view of the organization. Marauder40 (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The protocol is a pretty important aspect, I think, as these fraternal organizations are most known for being "secret societies" of individuals and so having some material about the actual nature of that secrecy is important. I think at least some of the organizational details that were removed are also important, though for GA status you probably don't need all of that material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at it. The secrecy within the Order is minor. The only secret aspects of the entire Order are the initiation ceremonies and honestly they are no big deal. None of the stuff removed from the article mentioned that stuff. Most of the stuff removed was just things talking about council vs. state vs. regional and the protocol of who is in charge of the meetings. Personally I think the stuff isn't important, but if you do I will see if I can find the sources. Most of the sources are written and I don't have the actual copies, but I will see if I can find online versions.Marauder40 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this time I think we've done a great job improving the article thanks to TDA's suggestions and Marauder's sourcing and prose. The protocol stuff would be an excellent future addition, but I think the present state of the article meets GA. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am not going to have time to wrap up this review until Sunday at the earliest. While, I think some of the material should be re-added and would feel easier passing it if it were, I will consider whether this is perhaps too demanding for GA status. I do think it is going to have to happen for it to get Featured status.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think we need more stuff let us know. Keep in mind that one of the noms here is a Knight, and the other is a nephew of a Knight, so if we're happy with the article... – Lionel ^(talk) 05:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with adding back in some of those sections is that they are based on user manuals and things like that. I don't have easy access to them, even though I am technically a Knight I don't usually get involved in leadership type stuff. Some of the stuff is online but usually only on individual council pages (i.e. http://www.kofc-2169.org/kcrank.htm or http://www.sansecondodasti.org/!SanSec_htm/Knights%20of%20Columbus/knights_of_columbus__protocol.htm ) I am not sure whether they meet RS. One page says were they are adapted from but can you honestly put the one as the source without actually seeing it.Marauder40 (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the S&P downgrade mentioned in the lede is not mentioned in the article body. Also the wording "along with the United States government" does not clearly reflect the material in the source, which links the downgrade of the Knights with the sovereign downgrade. Those things should be addressed. Additionally, the lede still seems to refer to the protocol even though the material has been removed from the article body. I do think the secrecy aspect is important to mention as I have said above. I think the Emblems section could probably use work in the wording. Should some of the statements such as "through which all graces of redemption were procured for mankind" be taken straight from the Knights it should be indicated as such. As it stands, some of the descriptions of the symbolism come off as statements in the editorial voice asserting the truth of these ideas or reading like a manual.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just addressed a couple of your issues in the article itself. As for the Emblems section. I found the first two paragraphs exactly as written on several KofC council pages, so I first had to figure out who was copying from whom (WP from KofC or the other way around.) Well I found most of the section is a word for word copy of [4] so unless someone else wants to do it before I can, I will try to re-write the section within the next couple of days. Thanks again. P.S. In your opinion do either of the links I give above about protocol meet RS requirements? I can find tons of links linked to things like individual council pages or things like Ladies Auxiliary guides i.e.[5], but it doesn't seem like they have anything like that on the national page itself or in books that have been officially published online.Marauder40 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a pdf of the booklet from this page on the national site.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wonder why it didn't show up when I did all my searches. Must not have been using the right combination of words. Thanks again. Marauder40 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the lede goes into a little too much detail about the present state of the insurance program. I think that should be shortened a bit in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all your issues have been addressed. Let me know if you find anything else that needs attention for GA status.Marauder40 (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think the material about the women's auxiliaries should be cited and the comment in the protocol section that "all other events are open to non-members" should be cited as well. Do that and I think we will be finished.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want cited with the women's auxiliaries? Just that they exist is sort of a fact, not really needing a cite. You can find hundreds of existing women's auxiliaries, including the Phillipeans one listed in the section that I am sort of questioning noteworthy-ness on, but figure that it can stand just to give a little world-view. How about this page [6] in your opinion does it hold up enough to RS? It mentions both the need for secrecy and the fact that only the ceremonies that business meetings are the only members only thing. I purposely changed one of the words in the sentence from public to non-members since not all meetings are open to the public per-say. Some "other" event are only open to family, some to school kids, etc. saying public sounds like all meetings allow EVERYONE in.Marauder40 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is attempting to promote membership and is just a local council, I think it is probably not reliable. If you are having difficulty finding a good source for the statement then you could remove it. I don't think it is essential to say, given the preceding comment is sourced and covers the question well enough. To answer your question about the need for a citation regarding the auxiliaries, I think any statement that two organizations are connected should typically be supported by a citation, if not in this article than in the article on the organization, unless the organizations are widely-known as being connected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the women's auxiliaries is pretty common knowledge, but just in case I went ahead and referenced it. I removed the one line about non-members. That should address everything. Thanks again for all your support. Marauder40 (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is "common knowledge" in the sense necessary to say it is not material not likely to be challenged. That may be well-known among Knights and their associates, but the average person likely knows little to nothing of the Knights themselves, let alone any affiliated groups. Removed the youth arm Squirettes for that reason and now I think it is done. Passing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly was referring to it as "common knowledge" since most men fraternal organizations have some type of ladies auxiliary associated with them. But that is why it is always good to have different people looking at the articles. Thanks again for all your support.Marauder40 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]