Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knights of Columbus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knights of Columbus[edit]

This page has undergone signifigant revision and improvement the last few months. It underwent a peer review and all the suggestions made have been completed. It has several daughter articles, such as the Columbian Squires and the list of famous Knights, its neutral and stable, and all the photos are either free or have fair use rationales and sources. It is fully referenced and overall a very good candidate, I believe. Briancua 20:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add this is a self-nomination, since I have done a lot of work on it. Briancua 21:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: It's very well written, long, inline citations included, have been referred from many sources. (Wikimachine 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak Object. Some entire sections are without inline citations, notably the "College Councils" and "Organization" sections. Also, in a few places the Pope is referred to as "The Holy Father," a title which he certainly does hold, but which is similar to "His Royal Highness" in the fact that it is unencylopedic in this context. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 03:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of your concerns has been addressed. 1)Each section now has at least one inline citation; 2)The only place I found "The Holy Father" (In the photo caption) has been changed to "Pope." Thanks for the comments! Briancua 05:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—2a. It doesn't get off to a good start. "... the world's largest Catholic family, fraternal, service organization"; do you mean that it's a family organization, a fraternal organization, and a service organization? If so, these three epithets don't jam together smoothly as an a, b, and c construction. The origin of the name is a rather different point that is uncomfortably stuck at the end of this opening statement, joined with "and".
      • I agree the etymology was rather uncomfortable, but it has been fixed. As the the three descriptors, that is how the Knights self identify and I think its clear enough. However, if you have a suggestion for an alternative phrasing, I'd love to see you post it.
    • We learn in passing that this "organization" is an "Order"; not smooth. Why the upper-case O?
      • I posted a topic for discussion on the talk page about whether the top paragraph should read "The Order of the Knights of Columbus," the formal name, or simply "The Knights of Columbus," as it then read. There was no responce then, so I left it alone, but I've now made the change. As to capitilization, this is going back to the 3rd grade, but I remember that when you are refering to a specific you capitalize it and when in general it remains lowercase. E.g. 'every president has been married at least once,' rather than 'the President's wife, Laura Bush, is from Texas.'
        • But tell us that it's an order before you mention it in passing.
          • Already done.
    • "are solely restricted to members"—spot the redundant word.
      • deleted 'solely'
    • "Members take an oath of secrecy during the ceremonials to ensure their impact and meaning for new members." This is a jumble. Who is ensuring for whom? Is it existing members who do this? Once? Every time? For specified new members? What does "their" refer to?
      • now reads: 'An oath not to reveal any details of the ceremonials except to an equally qualified Knight is required to ensure their impact and meaning for new members.'
    • "public in nature"—do you mean "public"?
      • now reads: 'open to the public'
    • Who are "practical Catholic men"? Ambiguous.
      • I think you missed the footnote at the end of the sentence. There it describes what a 'pratical Catholic' is.
        • Our readers should not have to hit the footnote to disambiguate the wording. Please use a wording that is generally understood, or gloss "practical" in parentheses immediately after its first occurrence.
          • There was a discussion about this on the talk page, and the consensus was to put it in as a footnote. To put it into the intro was thought to be too much info for the intro paragraphs.
            • Well, don't use it in the lead, then. Introduce it smoothly further down. If I don't understand it, why should most other readers? Tony 10:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redundancy therapy is required by the writers. The whole text needs significant work before it's "compelling, even brilliant". I cannot agree with the reviewer above who wrote "very well written". Even a cursory reading shows the depths of the problems. Sorry. Tony 08:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for your comments! Briancua 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem; but please do find someone who's distant from the text to go through it thoroughly. It's a few hours' work. Tony 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did seek out a peer review, but in one week only got 1 reviewer. I'll go through it again. Briancua 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... no, you need someone who's distant from the text to run through it (see "strategic distance"). I have a secret list of good copy-editors on WP; are you compiling such a list? Everyone needs to, to match topic with potential editors they might ask for assistance. Tony 10:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: minor things that should be fixed-
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Thanks, Andy t 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and I echo Wikimachine.Illuminato 15:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for absolutely no mention of criticism whatsoever. I'm completely certain that a pro-life and anti-gay marriage religious group has drawn at least some criticism. As a sidenote, the "Current supreme officers" list should probably be made into a small table to one side or the other. I live in New Haven and I'll try to get a free version of the HQ, though I give no guarantees or timeline. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The text has been copyedited again. I searched but could not find anyone directly criticising the Knights for their positions on marriage or abortion. I did add a little on how at some public colleges the men-only membership restriction was considered discriminatory. The Supreme Officers have been put into a table, as have the colors of the 4th Deree.
  • Strong Oppose This article reads like a promotional piece for the Knights of Columbus. While I'm not saying the article is wrong in what it states, the problem is that the article leaves out any criticism of the organization or its political stands. For example of criticisms of the organization, see these references regarding homosexuality and the organization[1] [2] and these references about how the organization used to ban Black people from the Knights of Columbus, resulting in Black Catholics founding the Knights of St. Peter Claver.[3][4] These are merely two criticisms of the organization that should be mentioned if the article is to be NPOV. Other critiques of the organizations (such as its political stands during the Civil Rights movement) should also be given.--Alabamaboy 16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note to this, here is more info on the Knights of Columbus: "The Knights of Columbus, now numbering 1.5 million members in more than 10,000 councils, was founded in 1882. They did not accept blacks until some 30 years ago."[5] and "There was some embarrassment on the part of the church regarding the long-time segregation policy of the Knights of Columbus. The church's official explanation was that the Knights of Columbus was not a Catholic organization in an official sense and that the bishops did not have direct control over their internal affairs."[6] I thought I'd add in this info for the article's editors to use if they wish. In short, for most of its history the Knights of Columbus practiced segregation and the article should at least mention that. I should note that these last two references are from the National Catholic Reporter, and that the article came out in 1995, meaning the reference to "30 years ago" would be 40 years ago now. Best,--Alabamaboy 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you reminded me of the blackball system I went back and found the passages in F&F that discuss it. There is now a section of criticism. I honestly never thought about this as I joined in DC where almost all Knights were black. Never crossed my mind. I didn't inculde the gay man you mention but instead added the section about the lesbians who wanted to rent the hall since it had been through the courts and was better documented. --Briancua 02:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was really impressed by the new criticism section and feel it really ballanced out the article. Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm confused. This seems to be listed as a Featured Article now, but I don't see that the discussion is closed here?--SarekOfVulcan 22:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Knights_of_Columbus&oldid=1138465287"