Talk:Loyal Order of Moose/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 16:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article North8000 (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

In one place it says: "had 558, 57 members". I think that it is a missing digit, but it could be a mis-placed comma. The reference is off-line or I would have fixed. Can you fix? North8000 (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has " worship Him as they conscience dictates" in a quote. "They" looks like a grammatical error but might be an accurate quote. Could you check? North8000 (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify were in the article these items are mentioned? I cannot seem to find them. Also, I have recently ordered a hard copy of the Preuss book (the one I used previously is at a library I do not have access to at the moment) so I should be able to verify the offline references within a week or two.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This first one is now fixed so we're all set there. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second one is a few sentences into the "Rituals" section. North8000 (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions the 1925 lawsuit but not the result. Would you be able to add this info? North8000 (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that information is in the Preuss book.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, but did you plan to put this in? North8000 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, but did you plan to put this in? North8000 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it appears to be in Schmidt, no Preuss. I'll have to get to that.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=P2ViDnNezq4C&pg=PA76&dq=Independent,+Benevolent+and+Protective+Order+of+Moose&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B5z-UvySHMr02QX-1YCgDQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Independent%2C%20Benevolent%20and%20Protective%20Order%20of%20Moose&f=false Has some information on the subject.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this link states that it was a female organization.

Cool. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The images are photos of the outside of two local lodges. Knowing how hard the gauntlet is to get relevant images into Wikipedia, I'm inclined to consider that enough to pass the "illustrated by images" criteria. But would it be feasible to add any that apply in general. E.G. of their national facilities, their log etc.? North8000 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot simply take the logo off their homepage, I assume? Is there any other way to get logos? I see non-free logos often enough on wiki as small pictures illustrating the subject at hand. For instance the Elks logo on the top of this page.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are probably the most painful area of Wikipedia to deal with. There is a group who has sort of leveraged the spectre of the 20% of cases which might have actual legal issues a license to run amok against the other 80%. So I'm not overly tough in that area....so again, the images that you have would be enough to pass that. That said, the two "possible" routes to using the logo:

Get the owner of the logo to write to Wikipedia and eternally release it for unlimited use for free by anybody in the world for any purpose. Any permission short of that doesn't count. And unless the head of the Moose gets brain damage, that ain't going to happen:
Put it in under "fair use". This means that it needs to comply with the legal "fair use" requirements plus a bunch of made-up-others that, if enforced 100% would prohibit all uses. But to give it a try do what they did for the Elks one. Upload a low res image, and put an article-specific use rationale for the use in this article.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any even this is the only copy of the logo on their site, and its not very good quality.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put in as having passed this criteria. More / more diverse images would be a nice future addition but not required for GA. Resolved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lodge activities

This is a very large organization, but where it appears that a large portion of what happens happens at the local lodges. What do you think about the idea of covering a bit more about what happens there (meetings, events etc.) Do you think that this is a good and do-able idea? North8000 (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure how to do that. All that Schmidt et al. have given us is a very basic summary of the initiation ritual. There might be a secondary or primary source out there that details what goes on at the lodges.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can get an idea by browsing through their magazine.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going by this page, none of the local or state units have websites, though some idea of their activities may be gained by the categorization - some locals have RV Hookups, Camping Facilities or "met requirements, in facility and breadth of program, for designation as a Moose Family Center".--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's little/nothing in sources, the my thought isn't viable and certain not a requirements. (I actually know what goes on the lodges, at least circa some decades ago, as as a kid I spend hundreds of hours in local lodges. Each is basically a social and place to go/ hang out.) Resolved. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are association websites, and members could talk about what happens, but both might constitute primary sources and original research. I can see a history or sociology professor at some university organizing a class to study the history and/or activities of their local Moose Lodge for a semester project. Then, the university press could publish the research and Wikipedia would have a secondary source to draw upon. The Moose does great charitable work, puts on family functions, and is probably the best kept secret waiting to be discovered in your town. Ideally, the Moose should be the heart of the community it is in, but all this is origina research, so we have to hope that some professor reads my post and follows up. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has 2 images, neither is non-free so no article-specific use rationales are required. Per review discussion above, more images / more diverse images would be a nice future addition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Been a month since anything of note has happened. Are we just waiting on the book or are there other issues? Wizardman 18:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was basically looking for signs of life before doing the rest of the review. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia good article. Suggestions for future development is additional coverage at what happens routinely at the local lodges. Also a few more images of national facilities, logo etc. would be a nice addition. Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]