Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2023 [1].

Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption

[edit]
Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a church meant to criticize Televangelists and to draw attention to how easy it is to start a church in the US. Since I think most editors will need some context—basically, a church is a physical (or digital) place consisting of organised events containing prayer that provides a cohesive and often creative expression of beliefs, community, stories or morals. Thanks, LunaEatsTuna, for the idea! This article passed a GA review by Freedom4U in July- excited for everyone's comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial #

[edit]

Fantastic stuff. Marker for future review. Semen in post. SN54129 15:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129, gentle reminder, no rush :) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk apologies for leaving you hanging like that. I couldn't see anything wrong with it a few days ago, and can see even less now, so an unhesitating support from me. It's a nice, tightly wrapped article. SN54129 12:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, many thanks for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:1800THISISLEGAL_Recording_(Last_Week_Tonight_with_John_Oliver).ogg: FUR needs cleanup - some parameters are unfilled, and the material in "purpose of use" seems better suited to "respect for commercial opportunities". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, thoughts now? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Parameters are now filled, but more work is needed - the content in "not replaceable with free media" doesn't answer that question, and the "purpose of use" needs to make a better case as to why the non-free media is needed to support the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tried expanding it a bit, but I'm unsure. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think about "purpose of use" as justifying why this media is key to the article and to reader understanding. Why is it here? What does it contribute? Leave stuff covered by the other parameters (like no free equivalent) to those parameters to cover. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, attempted to fix again. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, does it pass or is more work needed? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • Any caption for File:Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption logo.png?
  • "On August 16, 2015, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver broadcast...": Should be "broadcasted".
  • Any information on the closings of the spinoffs?

Overall not much to say: it is short and sweet. Nice work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! For broadcast: I've gotten into a disagreement about this before, and Arjayay provided a sound argument on my talk page (see here). The sources I could fine said nothing about the closing of the spinoffs. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then it appears everything is all set. I will be happy to support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Review to come. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Creation

  • "private luxuries, and pointed out that the money was tax-exempt because of its recognition" → remove comma
  • "organization, with Oliver describing the process as "disturbingly easy"" → Oliver's name gets a little repetitive in this section, I think you could just simplify this to "organization and described the process..."
  • "Oliver explained that he was able to found the church due to "vague" legal restrictions. Oliver chose" → same thing with repetition here, recommend "He explained" and "He chose"
  • "comedian Rachel Dratch" → the form "the comedian" is used for Oliver and Dratch in the lead, but is not used here, recommend changing for consistency
  • "the church, and said that donations" → remove comma
  • "Oliver revealed letters of his months-long correspondence with Tilton, in which Oliver initially" → recommend "He revealed" and "in which he initially"

Response and dissolution

Reception

Spinoffs

Awesome article, that's all I have on the first read-through! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS, thanks a ton for the review! Impressed by the small-detail catches, think I've addressed everything! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good! The small details are less a compliment of my reviewing skills and more accurately stuff I've had to fix in countless reviews of mine and so now pay attention to whether I want to or not - in any case I am happy to support! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

[edit]

Looks good to me. Some nitpicks to prove I read it:

  • "heath care",
  • "megachurch used a toll-free phone number to permit callers to donate to the church,and said that" Space after comma, although it is not required; I think you mean "Oliver" as the one who said it and not megachurch, so maybe want to had subject after the comma.
  • Do we need so many "See also"s? Most are covered by the categories.
  • The piped link to Doctors Without Borders goes via a redirect to its real name Médecins Sans Frontières, which stops you realising that it is already linked above.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, goodness, can't believe I didn't catch these typos before- thank you very much for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's always one more typo. Happy to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • All sources are of good quality.
  • fn 8: The only Slate reference with an ISSN. Suggest dropping the ISSN for consistency.
  • fn 15: Same for the Washington Post.
  • fn 36: and this one too
  • Mashable: "In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that ... non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine" - okay
  • Salon: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." But only report John Oliver - okay
  • Spot checks: 5, 6, 19, 22, 35 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, many thanks for the source review, I very much appreciate it- everything should be fixed now! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

Coord question: @FAC coordinators: , 3 4 supports and the image review- may I open another nom? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, WikiCup final round. I remember it well. You are going to get limited bonus points from this pair. Feel free to be pushy, so long as you are polite about it. As you always have been. To be fair to all WikiCup participants we have a timescale of 21 days. We may be a bit more flexible in other circumstances, although I am only talking of a day, or, just maybe, two, less. So, barring something significant like an oppose, you may nominate a second at 14:34 16 August. @FAC coordinators: for information. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our Lady will hopefully become part of a John Oliver FT, but that may be a hard sell- Appalachian Spring will get 360 points, so that'll hopefully get me up in time, and I have three pending FLCs too. Many things in the works! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibbles from voorts

[edit]
  • "Vanned Parenthood": This is an EASTEREGG link.
  • "All donations were forwarded to Doctors Without Borders.": Can you choose another verb? "Forwarded" feels like the wrong word but I can't think of a better one off the top of my head.
  • "which owned the health care sharing ministry "JohnnyCare", satirizing the lack of regulations on health care sharing ministries to provide careof such ministries."
  • "and pointed out that the money wassuch donations are tax-exempt because of its recognition by theunder Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a church donationregulations."
  • "A message found on the church's website"
  • "Many reviewers agreed with Oliver's exposécharacterization of televangelists as "frauds", as one reviewer wrote."
  • "Peter J. Reilly, writing in Forbes, found his criticism "ironic", as one of the reports Oliver cites describes why the IRS has a difficult time auditing churches.": The irony here is unclear to me. Wasn't the point of the parody that the IRS' treatment of megachurches is absurd?
  • "who saidmade multiple incorrect medical claims"
  • "Oliver finished the segment by saying,:"
  • "mandating that HCSMs to disclose"
  • Add relevant portal links in the see also section.

Excellent work! voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts, impressed by the small catches! All were fixed but one: for the Forbes review, the irony is that Oliver criticized the IRS for not auditing churches, but a document he cited described why it was so hard for the IRS to audit churches. I've clarified that in the prose. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With those fixes and that clarification, support. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Made a couple of tiny tweaks, more than happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Our_Lady_of_Perpetual_Exemption/archive1&oldid=1186862726"