Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted 17:28, 8 December 2007.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all featured article status criteria.NancyHeise 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) Why is Operation Peter Pan linked twice within the same paragraph, once through the redirect Operation Pedro Pan? A link to Cuban exile in this paragraph probably wouldn't be amiss. The prose of that paragraph is quite choppy too, with a sudden mention of one notable Cuban exile, and then equally suddenly a mention of an organization's name change. (2) The nonfree images Image:CamHlogo.jpg and Image:EWTN.jpg have no rationale specific to this article, but in fact should be removed; they don't significantly increase readers' understanding of this discussion, but are rather used decoratively, in violation of WP:NFCC#8. (3) Couldn't the sections "Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami" and "Catholic Health Services" be incorporated under the section "Outreach", possibly even under the subheading "Charities"? (4) Some proofreading may be necessary; for example, in "non clergy employees", "non" isn't an independent word, it's a prefix, so it should either be written together with the following word ("nonclergy") or hyphenated with it ("non-clergy"). In general, it's a good idea to put an article through peer review before nominating it as an FAC. —Angr 17:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Angr, I appreciate your editing comments. Operation Peter Pan is linked twice once in its English Version and then in its better known Spanish name. It is an effort to be thorough since most people in South Florida refer to the operation in its spanish name but this is an English encyclopedia. I have changed to paragraph to make this clear. EWTN and Catholic Charities images are able to be shown in this article and do not violate any Wikipolicies. The paragraphs they adorn specifically mention these important charities that have very thorough wikipages about them. The sections Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami and Catholic Health Services are separate operations that do not fall under the heading of Charities or Outreach. It would be confusing to the reader to combine them making them seem like just another charity of the Archdiocese when they are not. They are huge operations with separate finacial systems that are audited and receive government funding for some services.NancyHeise 11:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand giving Operation Peter Pan's Spanish name if it's well known, but giving two separate links makes the reader expect to be led to two different articles, which isn't the case. I disagree that the two logos don't violate any Wikipedia policies; they're only used because the organizations are mentioned, but seeing these logos does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the Archdiocese of Miami. Their use in this article seems quite gratuitous. —Angr 15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated the link to one of the Pedro Pan articles so there is only one and made some of the changes you previously mentioned. I disagree with you on the use of the Camillus House and EWTN logos. Camillus House is a wholly owned subsidary not for profit company of the Archdiocese of Miami. This is not something that is merely associated with the Archdiocese, it is owned completely by the Diocese. Also, the EWTN paragraph is an entire paragraph just for that one item. I am not being gratuitous in keeping these logos, I think they make the page more informative and help meet the criteria suggested for a Featured Article. These logos do not give any web link or other promotional characteristics, they are identifying the company featured in the article. If it will keep the article from becoming Featured, I will happily remove them but I would like to know what some other people think first. Thanks for your comments Angr. NancyHeise 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have eliminated the logos in this article per Angr's comments. NancyHeise 19:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No & Oppose

  • On the basis that it does not fulfill #2a.

Remark: I see nothing wrong with the logos. They help with context. Learnedo 09:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section was expanded to meet the criteria for Good Article. It summarizes items that are expanded upon in the body of the article. Are you saying the lead section is not concise enough? Please see the discussion page for the article. Dr. Cash suggested expanding the lead article to meet the Good Article criteria. I expanded it to meet his suggestions which conform to Good Article. These criteria are the precursors to Featured Article status. Please specify what you think needs to be eliminated from the lead article if that is what you are saying with your comment. Thanks. NancyHeise 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
I've decided to not take any part in this article. However, still see WP:LEAD and read it in its entirety if you wish.

Support - I've read the article and I think it meets the criteria. I also consider the lead section a bit too long, but that does not stop me from supporting this well-written, well-referenced article. Squash Racket 14:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I still think a lot of the citations could be replaced by more independent sources, but the text has been rewritten to provide a more NPOV, facts-only perspective so I won't oppose based on the existing sources. The article is well-written and appears comprehensive, and NancyHeise did a good job of addressing concerns - the article is much better now than the first time I read it. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. Because too much of the article relies on non-independent or unreliable sources. Karanacs 20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC) The article needs a good copyedit; too many paragraphs don't flow well, and parts of the article feel more like proseline. Other issues-[reply]

    • The lead is too long.
        • Lead has been significantly reduced please take another look, I don't think I can eliminate any more without eliminating bare facts.NancyHeise 18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to maintain consistency within a sentence as to whether numbers in a list are spelled out or not. For example, "63 elementary schools, 13 high school, two universities and two seminaries" should either be "63, 13, 2 and 2" or "sixty-three, thirteen, two, and two"
      • There are still issues with this in the lead. Karanacs 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Immigrant people" should just be immigrants.
    • "all over the" -> "throughout the "
    • Newspaper names should be italicized, including The Florida Catholic
    • diocese and archdiocese should not be capitalized unless referring to a specific one (see first sentence of history section).
      • Not done. Karanacs 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK now it is done, sorry I missed all the dioceses thanks for following through.NancyHeise 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paragraph in the history section does not flow well. When did Hurley purchase the land?
      • Better, but still doesn't flow well between paragraphs. Karanacs 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see it now, much improved, what do you think?NancyHeise 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After you introduce a person, refer to them only as their last name (so in subsequent paragraphs, use Hurley instead of Archbishop Hurley; same for Carroll).
      • Not finished. There are instances where subsequent references talk about "Fr. <name>", and it should be just the surname. Karanacs 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I got them all now, cant find any more.NancyHeise 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph in the history section does not flow well either. I'd recommend you find an uninvolved person to do a good copyedit.
        • I have changed much in the history section wording and I think it is much better. You were correct, it did not flow well and needed to be improved. I think it is fine now, what do you think?NancyHeise 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It reads really well now :) Karanacs 20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4 of the 5 paragraphs in History section start with a date. That needs to be mixed up a bit.
    • You have several instances where the same word is linked twice in relatively close succession -- laity, Lifeteen
      • Lifeteen still linked twice in one paragraph in Ministries section.
    • Archdiocese of Miami is bolded in Sexual abuse allegations section and should not be.
    • Don't include wikilinks in the see also section that also appear in the article.
    • Citations are not formatted properly. Newspaper names should be italicized. Do not include (English) in the citation because that is the default on this wikipedia. Not all articles have the full publication date or the name of the author (see 22-24 at least)
      • Not completely done. There are several citations that still have language=English in them. For newspaper articles, you need to include the date they were published. Karanacs 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following are not reliable sourceS: About.com, Switchboard.com
        • Please see my comments in next paragraph about this. NancyHeise 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you find other citations for the various things that the Archdiocese does? Much of this article appears to be cited to organizations that are directly affiliated with the archdiocese, which means they are not necessarily independent sources.

Karanacs 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Please see my comments in next paragraph about this. NancyHeise 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! What a list! OK give me a little time, I am very busy for the next week but I will attend to this to do list for this article by next week. Thanks for taking the time to come and give it a thorough copy edit. I must tell you that the answer to your last question regarding getting better references is "No". I have spent hours looking for articles that address the factual data regarding the number of school children in the schools and such but there is no other source except the Official Catholic Directory. Honestly, a newspaper article on the subject would have to go to the same source to find that information, it is info that can only come from the company itself. About.com and Switchboard.com references are complimentary references for information that is also referenced to the Official Catholic Directory. I thought they lent a bit more weight to the believability of the Catholic Directory since they were used to list the actual schools and their street addresses, no one could dispute that the schools actually existed and thus the number of schools listed in the article is true. Eliminating these references will not enhance the article. All of your other comments are valid and I will attend to them little by little over the next week as I have time. Karanacs, thanks again. NancyHeise 03:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after beginning to make little edits, I lost control and stayed up way past my bedtime to address all of Karanacs concerns. Karanacs, please take a second look and let me know what you think. I have addressed all your concerns.NancyHeise 04:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you are excited about the article, but I'm sorry about the lack of sleep1 About.com and switchboard.com are not reliable sources and need to be removed. Anyone can post just about anything on about.com, and it is very frowned on in FAs. I am also concerned about the fact that most of the citations are not to independent sources. You have enough independent sources to establish notability, but I am not sure if there are enough for an FA. Is the archdiocese ever discussed in the Miami-Dade newspaper? I would think that the abuse allegations, at least, should have been covered there. Can you find the actual article in Newsweek that discussed Padre Alberto aka Fr. Oprah? I realize that information like school statistics is likely only going to come from the school, but I would look a little deeper for sources for other information - you should be able to find some of it. Comments like "Barry University is well known for its " should definitely be sourced to something other than the school. I've also left other comments above for things that were not completely fixed. Karanacs 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your comments about references. This article has proper references for a FA even more and better ones than most FA's I have been looking at. Althouth About.com and switchboard.com are not considered reliable, they are not the main references for the material covered but are supplemental and provide more information to the reader who may want to know those facts when looking at an encyclopeida page. Removing them makes the article less of an article. The addresses for the schools provided by those .coms lend beleivability to the article, they are confirmation of the entity's existence and are only listed in entiretly in the .coms. If the .coms were my only source I would agree with you but since they are supplemental, I disagree with the need for their removal. In addition, almost everything in this article has been confirmed and covered by two articles in major newspapers listed as references. The sexual abuse section could have many numerous articles in the Miami Herald but I was warned against over referenceing by the previous Good Article reviewers who said one or two is sufficient. That section has three, one is an independent source. Thank you Karanacs for your attention to the article, most of your comments were helpful and I know you spent a lot of time to be thorough. I will hold out hope for obtaining FA status. NancyHeise 19:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-reliable sources are not supposed to be used at all, because, well, there is no way to tell if the information they contain is accurate. Using nonreliable sources is actually worse than not citing at all, in my opinion, because they lead people to think that the information is accurate when it might not be.
The second problem is having such a large portion of the article cited to non-independent sources. I disagree with you that "This article has proper references for a FA." Yes, it is good that every fact is cited, BUT the citations must be made to reliable sources which are if at all possible independent of the organization (see the guideline on reliable sources). It's okay to have a few of the facts like school enrollment cited to the organization, but not for broad swaths of the article, and especially not for sections that are complimentary or talk about "most noted for". The non-independent sources are assumed to not be of neutral point of view. A notable organization should have plenty of independent sources, and it should not be hard for you to find them. Karanacs 20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment: The infobox title says "Diocese of Miami" instead of Archdiocese. Are the terms interchangeable? If so, you might need to mention that in the article. Karanacs 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to change it in the info box but I was not able to do this without creating some sort of mayhem. The terms are not interchangeable but are not very different from one another either. An archdiocese just has more people and a bigger area.NancyHeise 19:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed it for you, without mayhem! ;-) —Angr 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Angr. I was about to waste more of my sleeping time worrying about that until you came along and saved me from the worry! What do you think about the .coms? Is it against Wikipolicy to include them if they are only supplemental sources? Will the article fail FA completely if I include them? If the article fails FA because I need more independent sources as Karanacs has suggested, I think I will leave them in and let the article be a happy Good Article. I have really spent myself searching for sources and I think I have included the best ones that exist. Right now there are four major newspaper articles and a few magazines fulfilling most of the referencing. The other non-independent sources fulfill that information that can only come directly from the company and is referenced to the Official Catholic Directory published in The Florida Catholic Newspaper. No editor or reviewer has suggested that any of the information is in violation of NPOV since what is referenced to non independent sources only lists what ministries, how many schools, etc. It is not saying they are the best and brightest, they just say they exist. That is an NPOV. What does anyone else think? NancyHeise 03:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have eliminated the .com references that Angr and Karanacs were opposed to. I have eliminated the logos that Angr was opposed to and added two new images that I think look better anyway. NancyHeise 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through and doing some copyediting now, and a couple of questions are coming up. (1) The article says, "Carroll is credited with eliminating racial segregation in Catholic schools in 1963, before desegregation was undertaken by the nation." Could this be made more specific? When was desegregation ended in Florida public schools, and by whose authority? It wasn't "the nation" surely, but was it an order of the Federal Government, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, or was it the Florida State Government, or what? Even if you can't find out exactly whose authority it was, at least the sentence should read "...in 1963, n years before public schools in Florida were desegregated." (2) The "Schools" section says the archdiocese runs 13 high schools, and then gives a list of "some high schools supported by the archdiocese". But there are 12 high schools on that list. Why not just add the 13th school (even if it doesn't have a Wikipedia article) and say "the high schools supported by the archdiocese"? (3) "The St. Thomas University School of Law is one of only two accredited Catholic law schools south of Georgetown University’s School of Law in Washington, DC." What's the other one? And does that mean south of Washington DC and stretching all the way west to the Pacific? (4) Is "priestly formation" a technical term? If not, wouldn't "nine years of training" or "nine years of theological study" or something sound better than "nine years of priestly formation"? (4) Radio Peace is mentioned as having derived from Radio Paz, but Radio Paz itself isn't otherwise discussed. Is it still in existence? (5) Do you have a source for the "Fr. Oprah" nickname? I can't find it at either of the sites referenced in that paragraph. —Angr 21:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, I have addressed your concerns as follows 1)I have added language to address this comment about when segregation took place in the State of Florida adding a reference as well. 2)I added high school number 13 which actually does have a wikipage! 3)Eliminated sentence about accreditation because it sounds like an advertisement 4)Added language to seminary paragraph that more clearly resolves your question on priestly formation 5)I eliminated the Fr. Oprah sentence for lack of a reference. I got it from the wikipage for Padre Alberto but that page did not have a reference for the sentence. Thanks for doing a copyedit, these were good comments. NancyHeise 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks good, Nancy! I have no reason not to support. —Angr 06:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Angr, :) NancyHeise 05:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Writing, POV and formatting (link farm).

I went through and eliminated all unnecessary links. Please see the page again. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opening sentence winds around of of of of: "The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami is a particular church of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church in the Eastern region of the United States."

Corrected. NancyHeise (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is an archdiocese a church? Why "particular"?

Particular Church is the correct term per Catholic Canon Law. See other Roman Catholic Sites. NancyHeise (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appallingly overlinked. For example, why "Florida" twice in two sentences? And why first just "F", then "state of F"?

Corrected. NancyHeise (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we speak English or not? (priests??).

I am not in agreement with eliminating the Wikilink to priests. Since many children look at Wikipedia and use it for reference, we can not assume that the user of this page will know the definition of priest, thus, it is more informative and useful to keep this link. NancyHeise (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See MOS on spelling out numbers: "2 hospitals, 5 homes for the aged and 2 cemeteries". Then there's "thirteen".

I read the MOS on spelling out numbers and have corrected all sentences that were in violation. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "seven-day care centers" or "seven day-care centers"?

Corrected. NancyHeise (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read MOS about curly quotes.

I read MOS on curly quotes and replaced them with straight quotes per WP:MOS. I would not have known to do that if you had not pointed it out. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Grammar and POV: "These accused priests represent less than 1% of the total number of priests who have worked in the Archdiocese since 1966." "fewer than". Is this something written by the Church publicity machine? It seems to find an angle that excuses the institution and its employees. Why the stubby para after this? Tony (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording of that paragraph to eliminate any semblance of POV. Please note that I am an editor who is using her real name, I am not a priest, I don't work for the Archdiocese of Miami, I am not a "publicity machine" and I do not and have not received any payment for my efforts to make this article worthwhile. When I got to the page, it was being used soley by an editor who was blocked for vandalism several times (see discussion page of this article and John Favalora and Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases). My efforts have contributed to Wikipedia by bringing this article up to at least Good Article Status. I am trying to make it even better. I do not appreciate being accused of being a publicity machine and such a comment violates Wikipedia's policy requiring editors to assume good faith. NancyHeise (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the paragraph about the accused priests is factual. There have been 4433 priests who have served in the Archdiocese since 1966, 49 of them have been accused of sexual misconduct. I eliminated the sentence saying that this number represents less than 1% of the total number of priests who have served because of your comments. I think it would be POV in the other direction if you eliminated the total number of priests who have served. NancyHeise (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click on particular church to see what that means? —Angr 14:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is directed to Tony, not me I am assuming.NancyHeise (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was directed to Tony. —Angr 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Florida Catholic or Florida Catholic Newspaper? What is the official name of the newspaper? One more thing at one of the pictures: operated by the Archdiocese of Miami Camillus House charity - this is the full name of the charity? Squash Racket (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camillus House is the full name of the Charity. It is founded by the Archdiocese of Miami and directed and operated by the Brothers of the Good Shepherd, a Roman Catholic religious order who was asked by the Archdiocese to run the charity. The Archdiocese of Miami maintains an administrative role by having a senior member of its financial dept on the Board of Directors (Msgr John Vaughn).NancyHeise (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Florida Catholic, Inc. is the official registered name of the newspaper. Maybe we should be saying "The Florida Catholic newspaper" with newspaper not capitalized. NancyHeise (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see the article has been already changed. Yes, I was only concerned about grammar if the full name is Camillus House, now it's right. Squash Racket (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the lead, it may be worth splitting it up into several paragraphs, as one large paragraph harms readability. Here's my attempt, although I'm sure you can improve on it. CloudNine (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Miami&oldid=1085530164"