Talk:Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 20:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking a look at this article over the next coming days. :3 F4U (they/it) 20:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom4U, just checking in- no rush if you're preoccupied. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get it done by tomorrow. I've been writing the review up on my work computer so I don't have access to the review rn. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review done :) Seven day hold the nominator to address the following concerns. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom4U, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Let me know if you think some more changes are needed- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedom4U, think I've addressed everything else. Are the unstruck ones not satisfactory yet? Or just an indication of progress? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk Apologies for the delay. While I think there's definite room for expansion— particularly in the reception section, I don't believe that the article isn't broad enough for the GA criteria. The article doesn't fail in any other regard. The images are properly licensed and no copyvio was found. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

  • Unnecessary piped link to John Oliver
    • See below response

Lede[edit]

  • Unnecessary piped link to John Oliver
    • I think the wikilinks in the infobox and lead are necessary; it's the first time his name appears in the lead, and the first time his name appears in the infobox. Furthermore, he is the founder and CEO of the church, so why not link him? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have NPOV concerns about the word "expose". Perhaps "highlight" would be better, as that also better matches what is stated in the article's body.
  • satirizing what ministries are allowed to do by law, essentially having no obligation to provide any care. Rephrase
  • I have a few other concerns about the lede, but I'd like to take a look after changes to the body are made, just so I can get a feeling for how well it reflects the article.

Creation[edit]

  • to get money in the form of donations replace with for donations.
  • Televangelists like Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton often used the money to pay for private luxuries, but were still tax-exempt because of its recognition by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a church. Only reference [4] mentions these two, and only in relation to the television segment mentioning them. Therefore this shouldn't be mentioned in wikivoice, but rather should state In the segment, Oliver criticized televangelists like Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton...
  • seeking donations from distressed people with promises of curing sickness through prayer, or of helping people of marginal means get out of credit card debt, by sending cash through the mail This isn't mentioned in the article and should not be stated in wikivoice.
  • in which Oliver sent cash through the mail, only to receive more solicitations from Tilton, with nothing substantial in return - Only the Slate article mentions this correspondance in detail, stating To illustrate how money-hungry these institutions are, Oliver joined televangelist Robert Tilton’s mailing list for $20. In seven months, Oliver received 26 letters—almost one per week—and paid a total of $319, receiving little more than some weird packets of oil and a tracing of the preacher’s foot in return. I think the sentence should be rephrased.
  • "taking advantage of the open-ended IRS definition of the word 'church' and procuring a litany of tax breaks" You can't just slap according to a report in The Washington Post and call it a day. The article itself states that this is a quotation from the church's website (which should be mentioned if the quote is kept!) and I think this would work better paraphrased rather than quoted.
  • Kenneth Copeland and Robert Tilton are linked twice

Response and dissolution[edit]

  • The two cites don't mention semen. I know the Rolling Stone and the Entertainment Weeklky cites mention semen, but they're only quoting from the show in the articles. Given the real possibility that, since its a comedy program, its not true, I would either put "allegedly" or remove the claim altogether.
  • Is "The AU Review" a realiable source?
    • I don't see anything suggesting it isn't; it's the only sources I could find that detailed what happened when you called the number, all the others just mentioned the existence of a toll free number. Regardless, I added a USAToday source that double backs that the number exists. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternet is a generally unreliable source per WP:RSP
  • Last Week Tonight is linked twice

Reaction[edit]

  • saw Oliver's stunt as being along the same lines as comedian Stephen Colbert's setting up of a 501(c)(4) called the "Colbert Super PAC" Very awkwardly phrased. Could this be better as compared Oliver's stunt to comedian Stephen Colbert's "Colber Super PAC", which Colbert used to test the limits of the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. Remove all of Oliver's megachurch, in contrast, is a way to test whether the IRS might view Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption as a tax-exempt organization as that's already been stated in the article.
  • The other reactions needs to rely less on quotes as well. Take a look at Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections.

Spinoffs[edit]

External links[edit]

I'm curious as to why the original program is relegated to the bottom of the article, while the two spinoff episodes are embedded within the article?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Our_Lady_of_Perpetual_Exemption/GA1&oldid=1168211479"