Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knights of Columbus/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 04:26, 23 August 2013 [1].

---

Knights of Columbus

Nominator(s): Briancua (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a former featured article which was removed a while back due to a lack of historical criticism. I've addressed this with a few new subsections in the History section. I also submitted it for a peer review and addressed those concerns as best I could. The spelling has all been checked, and the overlinking has been reduced. The number of sources has also been expanded considerably, though there are a few that do lead back to the Order's website. For just about all of these, however, there is little alternative. I don't suspect that any other reliable source is going to describe the composition of the advisory board of the Order's junior organization, for example.--Briancua (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Footnote 39 should this be citing the original court case instead?
• Footnote 54: CNBC is a television network; they should be considered a publisher not a "work". A work would be one of the specific TV programs they produce. The network name should not be rendered in italics as a |work=, but it should be in roman text as the |publisher=.
• Footnote 59: who published this? Or, does the publication/website have its own name?
• Footnote 66: "PDF" is an abbreviation for "Portable Document Format", so it should be in all caps. (Footnotes 49, 82 and 89, etc. is missing the format, btw.)
• Footnote 83: is The Grantsmanship Center the name of a publication, or the name of of an institution publishing something? If it's the latter, it should not be in italics.
• Footnotes 86 & 87 are not consistently formatted, and if you can differentiate them a little so they don't look like duplicates, that would be better.
• Footnote 101: date?
• Footnote 110: this is a newsletter called The Lake Current. What article in it is being cited? On what page? Etc.
• Looking at the Works cited..
  • I'd like to suggest wrapping the list in {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} so that the text is styled at the same size as the footnotes above.
  • "The Crossroad Publishing Company" I'd normally drop the "The ... Company" as we normally drop items like "Company", "Inc(orporated)" or "Ltd" from publisher names when listing them in a citation.
  • It's a personal preference, but most bibliographic entries list publication locations as well for books.

This source review doesn't include a spotcheck or reliability check of the sources, just source formatting. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

All good catches. Thanks, Imzadi1979. I've made all of the changes in the references, save for consistently formatting 86 and 87 as the latter source does not provide a date. I did, however, make it more clear what the sources pointed to, instead of relying on the auto generated title. --Briancua (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The auto-generated titles were the inconsistency; one used semicolons to separate parts of the title and the other used the pipe character. Imzadi 1979 → 21:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comments' - reading through and making copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning). Will jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Today there are more than 2,500 Assemblies - this sentence is just sorta stuck in the middle of nowhere - looks like it might go best on the second para of the Creation of the Fourth Degree section (?)

You are right, it didn't fit in there well. I've moved this line up to a place where it flows better. Thanks for the copyediting and the suggestion! --Briancua (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. I am not familiar with the subject matter, but the prose is good enough for me to lapse into reading without worrying about corrections (a good sign) and I can't see any clangers outstanding. Ditto with comprehensiveness. I will await what others say and keep an eye on things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, 1a and 1c. I find the writing and sourcing to be sub-par. I see that a prose overhaul was recommended at Peer Review, but it doesn't look like that was accomplished. I recommend withdrawal to get an independent copyeditor after you fix the sourcing issues. Examples:

• "In California's 2008 election the Knights of Columbus attracted media attention when they donated more than $1.4 million to Proposition 8." This is unsourced. The next citation is to a government web site, and the statement after that about Californians Against Hate hardly comprises "media attention". Also, why is the group name in quotation marks?
• "As it was in the United States, this effort was criticized by some gay marriage supporters." Another unsourced statement. These two are examples, but the whole things needs auditing.
• "Founded by the Venerable Father Michael J. McGivney in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1882, it was named in honor of the navigator Christopher Columbus." Jarring extra comma before "in 1882".
• "Originally serving as a mutual benefit society to low-income immigrant Catholics" Odd wording. You don't "serve to" people, you serve people. The list following this phrase doesn't use a serial comma, but you use them elsewhere.
• "There are more than 1.8 million members in 15,000 councils, with nearly 200 councils on college campuses." Is the 200 included in the 15,000 figure? If so, why not using "including" rather than "with"? It's imprecise language.
• You variously use "order" and "Order", even in the lead.
• You variously use "US" and "U.S."

Sorry, but issues are way too easily spotted without even getting out of the lead. Please fix the sourcing, and then get a thorough independent copyedit. --Laser brain (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.