Wikipedia:Featured article review/Knights of Columbus


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:34, 4 May 2009.

Review commentary

 * FAC nominator notified but is on wikibreak. WikiProjects Catholicism and Secret Societies notified.

Reliability/neutrality issues raised at Talk:Knights of Columbus and Featured articles/Cleanup listing. DrKiernan (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am directly CoI'd from editing the article, but I can provide any primary sources needed or verification on any items that need to be cited. Anyone interested in improving the page can drop me a message or send me an email with specific requests. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove - The criticism section needs to be more developed. In particular, I am aware from extensive reading of primary sources that the Knights of Columbus experienced intense criticism from Protestants in the early 1900s. There is nothing mentioned in this article about it or the issues they incurred it over. If this can be fixed with a source, I will drop my criticism.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This sound more like a reason for you to personally edit the article and add a valid source for what you personally think needs added, not a reason to remove an article for FA. Marauder40 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't read much about the Knights of Columbus in secondary or tertiary sources, only some in primary sources. Therefore I can't add pre-1950 criticisms myself. It doesn't make sense for an institution that has existed since 1882 to only have criticism of it since 1950. Given what I've seen in primary sources, I find it hard to believe it isn't in any secondary source. For example, in the early 1900s there was a bill put onto the floor of the house that would have banned certian Protestant religious publications from the USPS (like with pornography in that day). I believe the KoC were supporters of this bill. I am not asking for any specific thing, but given the amount of controversy between Catholics and Protestants in America at the time, there had to be a role that the KoC played in it somewhere.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this one could be improved on. It would be difficult. How do we know which books to use? The Wurdulak (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It relies to much on the book by Kaufman. About ten different books is what's needed. The Wurdulak (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Images
 * It is unnecessary to show the emblem twice.
 * Presumably File:Chapeau.jpg is an image by Briancua?
 * File:Fourth degree.png is missing a fair-use rationale. DrKiernan (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the first issue. As for the fair-use rationale for the third issue, I assume the person that put up the picture was assuming fair use due to the following statement on the page above the link supplied "Clip art can be downloaded and used in newsletters, on Web sites and on program and event promotions."  Technically Wiki is a website and fits within the policy but it is unclear whether KoC meant their own web sites or any web-site. Marauder40 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is citations and NPOV. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per FA criteria concerns, referencing issues, and image issues as noted above. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Not enough "problems" to remove from FA. On the claim of unreferenced entries there are only two unreferenced entries in the entire article.  Both of which are "criticisms" that needed to be backed up or removed.  They can easily be removed, but the benefit of the doubt was given to the person that put the info up to either back up their claim or the info would be removed (and they have now been removed.)  On the issue of a large number of references coming from one book, that happens. There haven't been too many books written about this particular organization from secondary sources and using to many from primary sources would violate other policies.  As for the image issues there are only two, one requires input from the person that posted it, the other is questionable about whether it can be used or not based on the claim on the originating site. Worst case it can easily be deleted.  Marauder40 (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist, on the basis of what YellowMonkey noted and on the lack of pre-1950 criticism (specifically, during the era controversy between a generally anti-Catholic Protestantism and a pre-Vatican II Catholicism).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.