Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/JC's Girls/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2015.

JC's Girls

 * Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an American evangelical organization of Christian women who evangelize to female workers in the sex industry. The article has received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors and has undergone a successful good article nomination. Neelix (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * lukeisback.com links are returning errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have repaired the link rot; all of the lukeisback.com links are working now. Neelix (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D
This is certainly an unusual organisation - nice work in developing the article on it.

I have the following specific comments:
 * "When JC's Girls was first founded, pornographic film director James DiGiorgio took glamour photographs of three JC's Girls members for the organization's original website without asking for payment. DiGiorgio was not a Christian, but said that he was helping JC's Girls because the sex industry is "always trying to preach freedom of speech [so] anyone in this industry who has a problem with [JC's Girls'] message is a fucking hypocrite." - is this important enough to be in the lead?
 * "JC's Girls is less focused on seeking conversions than on communicating the message to women in the sex industry that Christians exist who aren't judging them and are willing to accept them." - this repeats what's in the previous para (but is a good summary - you might want to move the material around and trim a bit)
 * "Within a year of founding JC's Girls, Veitch had lost 25 pounds and become more physically fit to show that the organization's message is not motivated by jealousy" - this is a bit confusing, and is it relevant?
 * Comment from the GA Reviewer: This point is notable and interesting; Veitch was preemptively addressing a possible future criticism of her organization, and rightfully so. As the wording is apparently confusing, it could be made clearer, perhaps by moving Veitch's motivation closer to the beginning of the sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Theresa Scher, a former stripper and call girl, was looking for a way out of the sex industry" - if she was a " former stripper and call girl", why did she still need a way out of the industry?
 * "These guidelines were established because some women who had quickly gone from working in the sex industry to evangelizing with JC's Girls soon left the organization and returned to the sex industry" - whoa - these people try to exclude women who might not permanently transition out of the sex industry after a fairly short intervention which doesn't include any support to improve their skills, financial resources or any health and drug issues? Talk about self defeating. The wording around this seems unduly positive.
 * From a quick Google Scholar search, this journal article appears to include some coverage of this organisation.

I also have the following general comments:
 * The article presents this organisation as essentially operating in a vacuum aside from its interactions with various churches. Does it work with other religious or secular organisations to provide holistic support to the women who approach it for assistance? If not, why not? (this goes to my second-to-last point above: there's reams of evidence that interventions like this need to be multifaceted to be effective).
 * The article also presents the organisation as being novel when, as I understand it, it's not. There are lots of support organisations which are based around taking a generally non-judgemental approach, not to mention social workers and welfare services which provide assistance to women in the sex industry.
 * Have their been responses to this organisation from feminist commentators and organisations, social workers, or sex worker organisations? Some aspects of it seem likely to attract criticism (the glamour photos and use of sex appeal to preach to men, the underlying implicit assumption that the women in the sex industry need saving through religion, what appears to be a fairly amateur and ad-hoc approach to providing assistance to vulnerable women, etc). Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment from the GA Reviewer: All three good points; if the sources exist it could very well be true that this article needs to be broader in scope in order to qualify as a Featured article. Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review, Nick-D! I believe that I have addressed most of your concerns. I have replaced the information about DiGiorgio in the lead with the quotation by Barone. I have restructured and trimmed the "Ideology" section to avoid repetition and to improve flow. I removed the word "former" from the sentence introducing Scher. I have added the Liturgy source you indicated; thank you for finding it! I think that the statement about Veitch losing weight and becoming more physically fit is relevant to the article, so I have combined it with the quotation in a way that I hope makes it less confusing.


 * I'm not sure what to make of the second-last of your specific comments. The goal of JC's Girls is to communicate to sex workers that there are Christians who are willing to accept them; their goal is not to get women out of the sex industry, nor is it to turn sex workers into evangelists, and official evangelism is the only activity that JC's Girls excludes people from on the basis of their likelihood to return to the sex industry. The article makes clear that JC's Girls is very willing to include sex workers at their churches even if the women never leave the sex industry at all. Is there a way that you feel this can be made clearer in the article? I hope this explanation addresses the first of your general comments as well. As far as I know the only organizations with which JC's Girls has collaborated are Hookers for Jesus and the churches mentioned in the article.
 * This change in the organisation's rules looks like a change towards a quite different goal for the organisation - it can't be non-judgemental if its setting conditions for the women its working with to behave in a certain way (what message does this send to women who want to preach but are excluded?). This isn't really covered, and the wording is very positive. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your definition of judgement doesn't match JC's Girls' definition. Either way, there don't seem to be any sources that make the claim that you are making. Could you give an example of the kind of positive-to-neutral wording you would like to see? Neelix (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This goes to the problem of a lack of unrelated perspectives I've noted below. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * With respect to your second general comment, I think the novelty of this organization lies in its humble ambitions; it simply seeks to connect sex workers with churches that will love them. The organization does not attempt to get the women to leave the sex industry, which is, as far as I know, a novel idea among Christian organizations involved with the sex industry. As for your third general comment, I have added all of the sources I have been able to find that relate in any way to JC's Girls, and I would be glad to add any more that you know of. I agree that the organization seems like one that would be likely to attract criticism, although I have searched through multiple journal databases as well as Google, and I have not found any more criticism than is already present in the article.


 * But lots of other organisations have similar ambitions, and this organisation presumably mirrored itself on them (consciously or unconsciously). Not many modern non-government social worker/counsellor type organisations try to force changes to people's behaviour, and this organisation fits into that model. I guess this and my comment on the criticism raises the issue of whether there are sufficient sources to support a FA-level article? This is certainly a fine article which makes good use of the sources which you've found, but it's unfortunately rather unreflective at present. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I have been able to ascertain, this article already makes use of all of the existing reliable secondary sources that discuss JC's Girls. In what sense to you feel that the article is unreflective? Do you see this point as being an actionable item? Neelix (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a barrier to FA status to be honest. The article is largely written from the perspective of this organisation, with most of the other perspectives being from similar or also religious organisations or commentators. I think that is problematic as it means that the subject isn't firmly placed in context or critically assessed. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I find your assertion surprising. Of the 26 sources used in this article, 16 come from secular media with only 10 coming from religious media; most of the sources used in this article are from secular media, including five of the six sources that are most-cited in this article. More than three quarters of the individual citations in this article draw from the 16 secular sources. The bulk of the commentary on the organization comes from secular media, as does at least half of the critical assessment in the "Reception" section, which is a standard-sized section for this length of an article. Might you be willing to revisit your assessment of the sources? Neelix (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that all of the sources are, unfortunately, fairly lightweight profiles of this organisation and its organisers/leaders which appear to be written by generalist journalists. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope my alterations of the article and my responses here have addressed your concerns. If they have not, please let me know, and I would be glad to engage with them further. Thank you again for your comments. Neelix (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree with Cliftonian's comments below: the article has improved further during this FA from a strong base and I suspect that it's the best thing that anyone has ever written about this group, but unfortunately it lacks the kinds of details on the group's outcomes and ideology which are needed for FA standard IMO. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cliftonian

 * I had a look on JSTOR to see if I could find some more sources to back this up. Turned up nothing (though perhaps it may be good if someone else had a look as well, as I am not very familiar with the search interface there).

Ideology
 * We say "these women have been spiritually abused by Christians trying to frighten them out of the sex industry with warnings of damnation". This is stated as if it is fact but it is actually someone's opinion
 * "JC's Girls emphasizes that God loves these women" ditto
 * "does not try to persuade them to leave the sex industry; the organization recognizes that is often not financially viable for these women to immediately leave the industry" repetitive, usage of "industry" at end of each clause
 * "non-judgmental churches" who decides which churches are "non-judgmental"?
 * "Its volunteers tend to dress attractively" who decides what's "attractive" dress?
 * "does not mean becoming less attractive" perhaps "does not mean repressing themselves" or similar

History
 * "By 2005, Veitch was working as a hairdresser" Where? California?
 * Why "Matthew's House"? A reference to the evangelist of that name? Why not Mark, Luke or John?
 * Why have the past chapters of the organisation fallen away? Do any of the sources give any indication?
 * Unfortunately, they don't; I have no idea why the other chapters no longer exist. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "On Good Friday in March 2005, Veitch, Albee and six other women went to a strip club" Where? Riverside, CA?
 * Presumably the choice of Good Friday was deliberate? Why Good Friday specifically (as opposed to Maundy Thursday, Easter Sunday etc)?
 * Unfortunately, the sources are silent on this point. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Albee would later say that talking with women at the strip club changed her life" On this occasion specifically, or in general? (we make reference to more activities along these lines)
 * "Within six months of its founding, the organization's members had persuaded several strippers to start attending a church" out of how many evangelised (roughly)?
 * The sources don't seem to say. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "and were only once asked to stop" by whom? what was the ministry's reaction?
 * Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "By December 2005, Veitch, Albee, and teacher Tanya Huerter had become the organization's leaders" how? were they elected leaders or what?
 * Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Huerter, who also had no experience with the sex industry, said, "I have a heart for these girls ..." when did she say this?
 * "approximately 90 churches responded with interest" according to whom did about 90 respond with interest? out of how many contacted? how many actually helped?
 * Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "additional media coverage from other newspapers, television programs, and radio stations" in Britain, or elsewhere?
 * "She said that working with JC's Girls helped keep her mind off of her husband's brain cancer" when did she say this? is it really relevant enough to merit keeping in the article?
 * "Veitch eventually moved to Las Vegas" when? why?
 * Were they as successful at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in years after 2006? Why/Why not?
 * Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Based on Veitch's work with Celebrate Community Church, JC's Girls started a program called "One Church for One Girl", which encourages churches to help women to leave the sex industry once the women have expressed an interest in doing so." This seems to be a repetition of something already stated in the ideology section.
 * "In July 2011, Veitch resigned from JC's Girls so she could spend more time with her family." What happened between 2008 and 2011? seems to be a bit of a gap here.
 * Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "an overwhelming passion to reach out to these precious women in love and without condemnation." quote needs in-line citation
 * "She had been sexually abused when she was a child" perhaps "She has described being sexually abused as a child" for something this evocative and contentious; could be a BLP issue (unless there was a trial and conviction here)
 * "Twice each month, members of the San Diego chapter of JC's Girls visit strip clubs." This is sourced to an article from four years ago. Do we have evidence that they still do this?
 * "a prayer team prays for them" bit repetitive. perhaps "other members pray for them" or similar
 * "while they are out" wording makes it sound like all the church's members live together in some kind of compound
 * Prejean does not have a background in sex work, correct? Perhaps this should be made clear as some readers may get the wrong end of the stick.
 * I have no reason to believe that Prejean has a background in sex work, but the sources don't explicitly say that she doesn't. I have attempted to reword so that the implication is less likely to be made without making an explicit statement against. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why did they give "lip gloss, necklaces, and lotions" to the strippers they were trying to evangelise? Seems to me an odd use of the organisation's money.
 * We make reference to a "peace treaty" in Warsaw, OH. Did the opposing parties actually sit down, write up a document and sign it? Or did they just agree not to fight each other anymore?
 * As far as I know, it's the latter. The sources use the word "accord" rather than "treaty", so I have switched to that. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why did the aforementioned "peace treaty" break down? The wording seems to imply the church members broke the truce by going back to picketing. Is this the case? Were these pickets organised by the church's leadership or by church members independently?
 * "several of the strippers JC's Girls members had spoken with in San Diego had begun attending a Bible study hosted by the organization and the chapter had helped one stripper become a Christian" at what stage does the organisation consider the strippers to have "become Christians"? Confession of faith, baptism, or what?
 * "That July, Veitch left the organization" This is repeated from further up. I would recommend removing the earlier mention and moving the information here so it is all together.
 * "Sher gave up her co-leadership of the organization to focus on her family" when?
 * "The woman must consistently attend a Bible study for four months" why is Bible study linked here and not at the first mention?
 * they must "read Francine Rivers' book Redeeming Love"? Why? It seems very strange to me that a Christian organisation would require its members to read anything non-scriptural. Encourage, perhaps, but not require. As Nick says above, this seems to me to go very much against its previous stated goal of not judging the women.
 * I don't think there is any reason for us to debate this point; it is sufficient to say that there are no sources that comment on whether or not this policy is judgmental. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Brown left JC's Girls in April 2014 and Laura Bonde took over leadership of the organization" Why did Brown leave? Who's Laura Bonde? What happened between 2011 and 2014? Are we to understand that JC's Girls was not successful during this time?
 * I think we are to understand that news agencies were no longer interested in covering the activities of JC's Girls during this time, not that the organization hasn't been successful. The majority of the sources are news sources, and an organization is not considered newsworthy if it is simply doing the same thing it did last year, whether it continues to be successful or not. The other questions you ask here are not answered by the sources. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would put the "Original website" section as a third-level section between the Riverside and Las Vegas sections. Seems more logical to me chronologically.
 * How many hits does the website get today? Are they on other social media—facebook etc?
 * I have added a link to their official Facebook page. The current hits are difficult to determine. Their current website is simply an extension of the Rock Church website, and Alexa doesn't distinguish between the Rock Church hits and the JC's Girls hits. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see three official websites listed under the external links header, but no explanation in the body as to why there are different websites.
 * I don't have any sources to explain the different websites. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why did James DiGiorgio help them? Just because he was Veitch's friend? Presumably they knew each other from when she was in porn?

Reception
 * "When JC's Girls first started receiving funds from Sandals Church" it may be worthwhile to say again what year this was
 * "some of the church's members were displeased that their tithes and offerings were going towards lap dances" but the activists were not actually receiving the dances—the issue is that the money was still going to the strip clubs, yes?
 * "Brown said that funding the activities of JC's Girls was worthwhile" when?
 * The image of Heinlein doesn't seem relevant enough to me to include.
 * "At the end of 2005, Veitch said that she had expected that someone would have shouted at JC's Girls members or ejected them from a strip club at some point, but no one had." dubious notability
 * Is it really notable that a photograph of the volunteers at the 2006 expo was in a book in 2007?
 * I think it is worth retaining this statement. It is an interesting point that an image of JC's Girls was featured in an otherwise pornographic book, especially one that was significant enough to spawn a film. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pat Sherman of Pacific San Diego Magazine said that the members of the San Diego chapter of JC's Girls "have the looks to land jobs working the pole." Doesn't seem notable to me
 * Documentary filmmaker Bill Daly said that JC's Girls are like Charlie's Angels, but in real life. He said that members of the organization are "fighting false glamour with real spiritual beauty." The second part of this passage is good. The first part not so much; I would trim.
 * "In his book Evangelicals and the Arts in Fiction, John Weaver writes" when? who is John Weaver? What evidence or reasoning did Heinlein provide for his prediction that evangelical Christians would undergo a "sexual revolution"?
 * "A journalist for The Observer compared JC's Girls to XXXchurch.com" when? The assertion "both of 'these ministries are in some way reforming the church as well as their would-be followers'" seems to me somewhat dubious considering the statement is from 9 years ago and JC's Girls seems to be well past its heyday.

This is a good piece of work with the resources available but I agree with Nick's assertion above that the article seems unreflective and uncritical, and that this is a problem where FA status is concerned. Very little context is given here. I understand this is largely down to the lack of sources but unfortunately where reliable sources are lacking our treatment of the subject can only ever go so far. I'm sorry not to be more supportive and I hope the notes above help the article to develop. If there is more I can do to help please let me know and I'll do my best to help. Cheers and well done for all your work on this so far. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  05:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You do very thorough reviews, John! Thank you very much. I have attempted to address all of your points above. Anything I have not explicitly responded to, I believe I have addressed by altering the article according to your suggestion. Please let me know if I am wrong on either of these points. You ask a lot of questions for which there don't seem to be any answers in the sources. I did find one source that answers a few of your questions: a documentary film that I have added to the bibliography. I have always held that any article that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines should be eligible for featured status if it employs all the existing sources, but I understand that not all Wikipedians agree on this matter, and I respect your position. Whether or not you ultimately decide to support this FAC, I would like to address all of your actionable concerns to the best of my abilities. Thank you again for the review and your thoughts. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has improved since the last time I looked at it and is a solid GA but I'm afraid for FA there would need to be more commentary on the group's actions, how its ideology matches up to scripture, Christian doctrine etc (for example their liberal attitude regarding modesty and clothing seems to me to contradict 1 Peter 3, but I suppose they would say that's me being judgmental, and maybe they're right). It's a shame because this is an interesting organisation it would be good to have more information on. In addition to the unresolved queries above I would be interested to know, for example, if any of the members had ever been observant Christians before or if all of them were becoming Christians for the first time. I'm not sure if I asked before how Veitch herself became a Christian—how exactly did she come up with this ideology for the organisation? Indeed was it Veitch who came up with this ideology, or was it a collaboration with others? How has it evolved over time? Is it still the same now as when the group started? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your continued engagement with the article, John; the citation work you did was particularly helpful. Apart from the criticism of the glamour photographs on the original website, I haven't managed to find any sources that discuss Christian responses to JC's Girls' clothing choices. In Day's documentary, Brown states that the #1 complaint that he gets about JC's Girls is about how Veitch looks, although no scriptural or doctrinal justification is provided for these complaints - would it help for this quotation by Brown to be included in the article? I did manage to find one reference to scripture in opposition to the fact that JC's Girls is run by women, and I have added this information to the end of the first paragraph in the "Reception" section. My understanding is that Veitch and Brown worked out the ideology of the organization together; are there particulars on this point that you would be interested to know? The documentary does go into some detail on the origins of the organization, although I didn't find anything else I thought sufficiently important to add to the article. Veitch became a Christian initially out of fear regarding the Year 2000 problem; I have added this information to the article. Do you have any other recommendations about how to improve the article? Neelix (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This quotation by Brown would be good. If the people complaining don't provide any scriptural support for this it just shows how little they know their Bible (in my judgmental opinion)—critics could quote 1 Peter 3 as I said above, or the similar 1 Timothy 2, which I see you have added. Did JC's Girls counter with scriptural passages advocating a more egalitarian attitude and/or a more prominent role for women (eg Galatians 3:28, parts in Acts and Romans that I recall mention prominent women among the early Christians)?
 * Regarding the wording that Veitch "converted to Christianity"—what was she converting from? Wasn't she nominally Christian already (as opposed to Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist)? If she became born-again because she thought the end of days and the final judgement were coming in 2000, presumably she had left the sex industry by the end of 1999? How did the nature of her faith change when the world didn't end at the millennium? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  01:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I had presumed until now that all of the women in the infobox image were from JC's Girls, but having opened the description up I see only the three comparatively covered-up brunettes behind the booth are JC's Girls and the scantily-clad blonde at the front is an unidentified "model". This seems to me to imply that the latter is not part of the organisation. I'd recommend clarifying this, and if the blonde is not part of JC's Girls either using a different image or cropping her out—readers may get a rather misleading image of just how far the organisation goes with its openness regarding dress. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  02:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I have found the golden source! There is a Christianity Today article in which Veitch says that Christians often criticize JC's Girls for dressing like sex workers, and I have added this information to the article. I have also added a few other sources that I came across as I was scraping the bottom of the Google barrel that provide a bit more context. I have also added the quotation from Brown. Do these provide the kind of critical assessment that you are looking for? I think it reasonable to assume that Veitch was not practicing any other religions before becoming a Christian. Do you feel that the word "converting" is inappropriate as a result? I have added more information from the Los Angeles Times article to clarify that Veitch left the sex industry before the end of 1999. I haven't managed to find any sources that suggest that the world not ending had any particular effect on Veitch; she simply continued to attend church. I have cropped the image in the infobox as you recommend; I can understand the potential confusion, now that you mention it. Neelix (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that "converting" is not the right word for this context; it seems to me to imply that she was actually actively something else before, but it seems to me that she was previously irreligious. I'd prefer the simpler "became a Christian" with variants depending on tense or something like that (I think the noun form "conversion" is okay). The new information is an improvement (though I'm not sure I understand the logic of the "when in Vegas" comment). A thought I have had from looking through the sources is that we seem to be rather unfair on Reverend Ray Turner of the Temple Missionary Baptist Church. We have him sound like a patriarchal fuddy-duddy who of course thinks the Jesus girls are terrible and misguided just because. While he does criticise JC's Girls in the source, we don't clarify that he's referring to scripture (Matthew 6, God and Mammon), and we don't mention that he also said he "commend[s] her for her zeal and desire to reach the lost for Christ." We also don't mention where his "Temple Missionary Baptist Church" is. The name of the church by itself isn't particularly helpful; this could be anywhere. It would be clearer and more helpful to refer to a "Baptist minister from San Bernardino, California" or something like that.
 * "In its first year, JC's Girls was criticized for asking DiGiorgio to take glamour photographs" by whom? Also, we just say they "asked him" to do it, not that he actually did it.
 * Why don't we mention the "If you are a CHRISTIAN ... See us in ACTION" quote from the website?
 * A lot is made of Veitch's "Do we ask gluttons to stop eating too much before they come to church?" comment in response to the Rev Ray Turner's criticism. However the source does not say this was specifically in response to Turner.
 * When was the Raëlian response to JC's Girls formed/operational?
 * Sher or Scher?
 * Do we really need the picture of DiGiorgio here? I mean, is it really relevant to show what he looks like? (showing what the JC's Girls look like is relevant as it is a key part of what makes them distinctive). It seems to me like this image is just here to highlight the "fucking hypocrite" quote already in the prose.
 * We refer to attempts to help those seeking to overcome pornography addiction, but don't actually explain what these entail.
 * Hope this helps. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  04:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment from GA Reviewer of this article: I had not noticed the blonde woman many not be affiliated with the organization; that's a good observation. Regarding the cropping of her, my personal thought is: "Darn!" Prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You can still see her here, Prhartcom. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  04:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, much obliged, Cliftonian. I believe I could have located the "View history" tab, though. The article is looking good, gentlemen, I remain supportive of this article (even if the quality did undeniably drop ever so slightly with this edit). Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your comments are certainly helpful, John. I have gone through another series of edits to the article, and I believe that I have addressed all of your most recently mentioned concerns except one: the explanation of how JC's Girls attempts to help people in overcoming pornography addiction. The only thing I have been able to find out through the sources on this point is already in the article: namely, that they have distributed a DVD containing a sermon by Brown on the subject. Do you have any other concerns that I might address? Neelix (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If I think of anything more I'll let you know. Thank you David for taking all of my comments in your stride and handling them with alacrity and and general good humour. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  07:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Sitush
I'm sorry but this is ridiculous Christian evangelising. Most of the content seems to revolve around smarmy media interviews etc that, while nominally independent, are clearly extremely reliant for their facts on the very same "missionaries" who are the subject of the article. It quite possibly shouldn't even be GA because far too much of it is very closely associated with the organisation. Just as one very trivial example, the 40,000 hits figure for the website is not something that can be derived independently.

I've no idea how it could be made more neutral, bearing in mind some of the comments above re: searching JSTOR etc, but we don't need and shouldn't have proselytisation here. It reads like someone's hobby-horse. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you apologized for that statement. You are welcome to your opinion of course. This article meets the general notability guideline spelled out in Notability, has the proper citations as named in Identifying reliable sources, meets every one of the Good articles criteria and is clearly showing every sign of meeting the Featured Article Criteria. It is written by a scholar who has a good reputation here on Wikipedia. It is bound to attract the ire of some, but that is to be expected. If you wish to respond to my reply you are very welcome, either here or on my Talk page. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I must disagree with your assertion that the article is "showing every sign of meeting the Featured Article Criteria", ; only Nick and I have given full reviews so far and neither of us is supporting as things stand. Both Nick and I have already above expressed views similar to those expressed by Sitush regarding the lack of reference material and the nature of that we have, the lack of serious critical commentary regarding its actions, ideology and results, the need for more proper perspective than what reliable sources seem to be able to provide, etc. I agree with Nick's comment above that this is probably the best outline anyone has ever drawn up regarding this organisation, but this frankly says about as much about the lack of supporting coverage as it does about the work Neelix has put into it. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's fine; I remember noticing the reliable sources were good but not great during the GA review and decided that Neelix did the best he could, so I agree with your assessment of this situation, Cliftonian. I notice that he has found more helpful sources, so I will continue to hope for the best for Neelix's sake.


 * As for Sitush's comment above, that is an overly sensitive, obviously biased statement. It reminds me of the first GA reviewer, who loved the article but felt disinclined to pass it solely because his wife was uncomfortable with the article's images. As editors we must not let our personal feelings get in the way of our quality assessment of articles. We only judge an article by the written criteria. To use myself as an example, during my review of this article I felt a duty to put aside any personal feelings I may have about religion. As I set about checking to see if the article met the necessary criteria, I realized the article's topic is interesting and unusual. It is worth being seen and read by others. Prhartcom (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that Sitush's comment was strongly worded, but I really do understand his concerns regarding the sourcing. I'd like to clarify that I always do my utmost to put my personal feelings aside and look at things neutrally, not just when reviewing but also when writing and in my day-to-day real life. The comments I have given here are no exception. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  00:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jaguar
I realise I have come to this late and my comments will most likely not be as extensive as the others, but I'll read through the whole article and will bring up any prose concerns I can find. JAG UAR   15:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "The group does not focus upon conversion but on communicating its message that Christians exist" - I would put an adverb in her to make it clearer: The group does not focus upon conversion but rather on communicating its message that Christians exist
 * "In January 2006, JC's Girls went to Las Vegas to operate a booth at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo that received much traffic and news coverage" - what about any views/opinions from media coverage? If you want to keep the lead compact and summarised then don't worry about this
 * "JC's Girls is less focused on seeking conversions than on communicating the message to women in the sex industry that Christians exist who are willing to accept them without judging them" - I think this sentence is a run-on, is the part where it says "that Christians exist who are willing to accept them without judging them" the message they're trying to communicate? Or is it two different things?
 * "The organization also diversified to support people with pornography addiction" - might sound silly but by 'people' is it referring to men too? My understanding is that this is a organisation for women?
 * "Its volunteers often wear eyelash extensions, stiletto heels, skinny jeans, and skin-tight t-shirts and backcomb their hair" - too many conjunctions in this sentence. May sound better as Its volunteers often style themselves with backcombed hair, eyelash extensions, stiletto heels, skinny jeans, and skin-tight t-shirts?
 * "...public discussion about the Year 2000 problem and the end of the world caused her to think that she might experience divine judgment for her lifestyle, so she became a Christian, married her boyfriend Jon, started and completed a course in cosmetology, left the sex industry, and became a hairdresser all by September 1999" - this is all a very long sentence and would flow better if it were split in half. Also, the typo "judgement" needs to be corrected. I'd recommend splitting it in half where I highlighted the comma so it reads: for her lifestyle. She then became a Christian, married her boyfriend Jon...
 * "In the past, JC's Girls chapters have been based in" - sounds quite ambiguous, can it be more accurate? This organisation is only ten years old!
 * "One of these women was fired from a strip club because she started attending Sandals Church, but she continued attending the church" - this makes no sense, did she continue attending Sandals Church when she got fired?
 * "The booth was decorated to look like one of those advertising strip clubs" - sounds informal
 * "distributed more than 200 Bibles wrapped in T-shirts" - T-shirts is not capitalised in an earlier mention

That's all the prose issues I could find on my initial read-through of the article. In some places there were a few minor errors and I also spotted a few mistakes, but overall it read fine. I know this review is short in comparison to the others, but I don't feel qualified enough to verify all the references! If there is anything else I can do, please let me know. I'll be watching this JAG  UAR   17:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the review, Jaguar! I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns except two. 1) I retained the spelling of "judgment" because this is the American spelling. 2) I'm not fully clear about your concern with respect to the phrase "The booth was decorated to look like one of those advertising strip clubs" being informal; what would you like to see change about this phrase?


 * Might you be willing to weigh in on the issue of whether or not an article about JC's Girls should be eligible for for featured status? The editors above have suggested that the organization has received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to justify an article on Wikipedia, and that the article makes good use of these sources and is about as well-written as it can be, but that the available sources do not contain enough critical commentary or contextualization of the organization to allow for a featured article on the subject. I respect the editors who have made this argument. I have always held that articles that are on sufficiently notable subjects to justify inclusion on Wikipedia should also be eligible for featured status, provided that the article is sufficiently well-written and makes full use of the available sources. Whatever your opinion on this subject, I would be glad to know it. I hope that this FAC will be successful, but if it is not, then my future actions with regards to the article will differ greatly depending on whether or not the Wikipedia community believes the article to be on a subject that is ineligible for featured status. If a FAC is unsuccessful because the article is poorly researched or because it is poorly written, then the nominator can research it better or work on the writing and then nominate the article for a second FAC. If, however, a FAC is unsuccessful because the community is unwilling for there to be a featured article on the relevant subject, then the nominator would have no reason to renominate the article for a FAC in the future. Neelix (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * David, judging from the above post you seem to think I am not supporting this article's promotion because I think "the subject ... ineligible for featured status" or because I am "unwilling for there to be a featured article on the relevant subject". I'm disappointed that this is the impression I seem to have given you. My concern—shared by Nick and Sitush, if I have understood them correctly—is about what you mention in the first part of your post regarding commentary, etc. Your comment could be taken as an allegation of bias and/or bad faith on my part and so I hope this was just a case of ambiguous phrasing. I have in fact invested a great deal of time and effort in trying to help you develop this article and bring it up to FA standard.
 * I'm somewhat concerned by your statement that your "future actions with regards to the article will differ greatly" depending on whether or not FA status looks feasible. In my humble opinion researching, developing and improving the article should be its own reward, not a mere means to the end of successfully nominating at FAC. You have done a fine job on this article considering the material you had to work with, and I commend you for that, but I'm afraid I do not agree that my acknowledgement of your hard work and effort must take the form of a support for FA status—effectively re-purposing the support from an endorsement of the article to a "reward" for the nominator. If JC's Girls receives more in-depth critical coverage in time to allow the development of an article really meeting the FA criteria, I would as always be delighted to try to lend a hand if you wish, but I'm afraid my help must be restricted to reviewing and improving the article as opposed to rationalising on other reviewers' motives. Cheers, I hope that you are well and having a pleasant weekend. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  10:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * John, I am very sorry for having written in such a way that my comments could be interpreted as alleging bias and/or bad faith on your part; that was not at all what I intended. I have always greatly appreciated your reviews and comments and I have no reason to believe that your comments here or elsewhere have involved bias or bad faith. In fact, I have much reason to believe that you have acted neutrally and in good faith. You and I happen to disagree about whether or not a subject can have received enough coverage to have a valid Wikipedia article written about it while not having received enough coverage to have a featured Wikipedia article written about it; I think of these two levels of coverage as being the same level, while, if I understand your position correctly, you think of there being a gap between these two levels. That we disagree on this particular point does not impinge upon my high opinion of you, of your work in writing Wikipedia articles, of your willingness to perform thorough reviews, or of anything else about you. I had no intention of implying that your acknowledgement of my work on this article needs to be accompanied by a support for featured status; I do not consider featured article promotions as simply rewards for nominators. If I can further clarify my statements, please let me know. Neelix (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this David. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  09:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been caught up in a lot of things! I will support this transition from GA to FA now as I'm happy with the prose. The article appears comprehensive and balanced as well as well referenced. I can see this as a Featured Article. JAG UAR   11:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
That's all from me. I don't feel competent to pronounce on the comprehensiveness and balance of the article, or the reliability of some of the sources, although I have no reason to doubt them. I should be happy to see the article promoted, but I refrain from formally supporting. –  Tim riley  talk    08:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Info-box
 * We really oughtn't to say "10 years ago" for the founding: that's WP:DATED with a vengeance.
 * Ideology
 * "willing to non-judgmentally accept them" – creaks a bit: how about "willing to accept them non-judgmentally"?
 * Second para – "these women" five times in this para, three of them in the first two sentences.
 * "volunteers tell these women about the gospel but does not try" – a lurch from plural verb to singular verb in this sentence
 * History
 * "As of 2014, the San Diego chapter is the sole chapter" – still true as of 2015?
 * Riverside chapter
 * "when UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph published an article" – You have references (ref 6 a –l) to the text of this Telegraph article several times elsewhere in the article, but – strangely, it seems to me – not here.
 * "Terminally ill" – is a blue link really helpful here? I think everyone knows what "terminally ill" means. (And I'm not convinced that "Christian", "alcoholism" and "freedom of speech" really need linking elsewhere in the text, but I do not press the point.)
 * Reception
 * "A journalist for The Observer" – is it worth mentioning that this is another non-US paper? The international dimension, you know.
 * References
 * We are inconsistent about whether or not to put full stops (periods) in people's initials: S.D. Liddick but KJ Mullins
 * We are also inconsistent with name order: it's mostly Firstname Secondname, but then Johnson, Todd E., and Greenberg, Brad pop up with surnames before forenames.
 * Later: on reflection, and in view of Neelix's pretty impressive record, I am prepared to take the balance, comprehensiveness and sourcing on trust, and to support this article.  Tim riley  talk    16:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review and your support, Tim! I have altered the article according to most of your recommendations. The statement of "10 years ago" is inherent within the relevant template and is updated automatically; if there is an issue here, please let me know. I retained the wording of the "willing to non-judgmentally accept them" statement because I am concerned that moving the word "non-judgmentally" to the end of the sentence will render the sentence ambiguous, suggesting that it is the communication of the message by JC's Girls that is non-judgmental rather than the acceptance by the Christians, although there may be an alternative wording that would prevent the creakiness you mention. I apologize for taking a few days to respond to your message; I have had a very busy weekend outside of Wikipedia. I greatly appreciate your faith in my editing. Neelix (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
Leaning heavily towards supporting, but just one point to consider first:

Background
 * "In 2003,[10]": what is this supporting? That the year 2003 existed is all I can see! I presume that you have one source (ref 11) that deals with all the details of "Veitch discovered that a friend of hers who was working as a stripper had died as a result of alcoholism", and one source (ref 10) that may deal with some of it, but contain the additional 2003 information. If that's right, stick both refs at the end of the sentence.

I've also tweaked the Grecco image slightly (made smaller and added a clear to the notes section) as on wider screens the image was moving into the refs listings and leaving a large white space. Feel free to revert if you don't like it, but it's worth leaving there. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review, SchroCat! I hadn't realized that the Grecco image spilled into the references on wide screens. I appreciate you addressing that issue. With respect to the citations you mention, you are correct; one source includes all the information except the year while the other includes all the information except the cause of death. I have moved the first citation to after the word "died" in order to address the concern you raise while also preventing the potential implication that both sources contain all the information in the sentence. Does this solution work for you? Neelix (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. All good now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Singora (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sitush ("I'm sorry but this is ridiculous Christian evangelising. Most of the content seems to revolve around smarmy media interviews") and Cliftomian ("the article seems unreflective and uncritical. Very little context is given here. I understand this is largely down to the lack of sources").

I lived in BKK for more than a decade and heard often about an organization called Empower. Check it out. You'll find plenty of info on JSTOR and Google scholar. Google books also throws up a few hits. If you want to write an academic article about the sex industry, Empower would make a very interesting subject.

IMO, this JC Girls organization warrants no more than half a dozen paragraphs at most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singora (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I disagree with Sitush's comments, and believe that the sources are appropriate and that the article is encyclopedically written. I also do not think that the article's length should be reduced, and I do not believe that there is consensus for such a reduction. Neelix (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Coord note
Has anyone conducted a source review of formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, I'll pick up on the sources in the next day or two. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review
 * Locations needed for the various news sources (particularly as there is an international flavour to these.
 * Ditto for the book sources - locations needed there too

- SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the source review, Gavin! I have added locations to all of the book citations and all of the news sources, except those for which the location is part of the name of the newspaper. Please let me know if there are any other source-related issues needing to be addressed. Neelix (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All good. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.