Talk:Order of the Arrow/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

I have volunteered to review this nomination for good article status. If you have any questions or concerns about this review, let me know. I will be watching this page, so if you have any comments this is the best place to communicate. Thanks, Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

General/MOS

• The lead does not conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should adequately summarize the article.

• I believe the lead now meets specifications. The article is 32kb in length, which requires two or three paragraphs (which it now has). Please specify any more suggested modifications to the lead. --Eustress (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)') and should not repeat the title of the article. "The Order of the Arrow Song"
  • Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Ref #1 is dead.
  • Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• City on the Hill is a college newspaper. This is the only newspaper cited. Anything better? Seems pretty marginal.
• Why is How Stuff Works a reliable source.

• Definitely a reliable, third-party, published source. (About HSW) --Eustress (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay. Mitico (talk, contribs) 22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why is atlascom.us a reliable source?

• Author is probably an expert, and thus the source would qualify under WP:SPS, but you can make the call. --Eustress (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm, seems to also be a wikipedian. Could really cause some circular referencing. I think the information sourced to him should be substituted or removed. (Unless he has been published by reliable third-party publications on the OA per WP:SPS). Mitico (talk, contribs) 22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ref #20 Farley is a college Senior paper and is not a reliable source. A master's thesis is questionable, while peer-reviewed dissertations are generally accepted.

• Is there a hard-and-fast rule on this? The paper presents primary research (an experience at an Ordeal). --Eustress (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Let me consider this. You may have a point. Mitico (talk, contribs) 22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is an over-reliance on official BSA websites. What about independent news stories? Books?[1]

• Good idea with the Google book search...never thought of that before. Several more non-OA sources have been added with the drastic changes and expansions in the article, and I think this issue is less of an issue. --Eustress (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Content

• A good copy-edit is needed. Here are some quick examples (not inclusive):

• "The Brotherhood Member" - why capital M? ...
• members of the Order of the Arrow, the OA is said - redundant, mixing of acronym & full name.
• Candidates then participate in a weekend-long Ordeal induction ceremony. Even in the summer?

• Fixed the specific examples. Marauder40 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• The origins sections leaves a lot to be desired. The E. Urner Goodman article does a nice job describing the genesis of the program, which is absent from this article. The list in this section should be made into prose.

• Converted the list to prose and overhauled section. --Eustress (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• The purpose section is just a cut and paste of the OA purpose & mission. Should be in quotes? Potential copyright violation? Prose?

• Fixed Marauder40 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• The membership section is full of unexplained jargon. Wikilinks and/or explanations needed for all of the scouting terminology. ("call-out ceremony," "Varsity," "First-class", etc)

• Fixed Marauder40 (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article does not adequately described the differences between ordeal, brotherhood & vigil members. Needs expansion.

• Discussed below

• The ceremonies sections needs more detail in order to meet the "broad in coverage" criteria. Something more than that they are standardized and mysterious (but yet open). What is the purpose of each? The arrow of light & eagle feather ceremonies are at least given an identity. Also, having never head of an "eagle feather" ceremony, I checked the reference which was silent about this ceremony. Is this a product of original research?

I addressed the "eagle feather" problem and the reference issue. I assume the modified format is OK without a reference because it is pretty common knowledge that OA ceremony teams assist with Arrow of Light ceremonies and Eagle Ceremonies but I can't find any good news articles that say it other then the numerous different ceremonies themselves. Marauder40 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Captions (ArrowCorps5) should not introduce new content.

• Fixed Marauder40 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Should training be a level 3 (===) header under events?

• Good idea...done. --Eustress (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not done a detailed review of the prose, however I am concerned about this article being laden with original research (such as eagle feather), jargon, heavy reliance on BSA only sources and use of unreliable sources, and the overall choppy-ness of the article prose. There were significant NPOV issues that were discussed ad nauseum in the 2008 talk archives. I am not sure these have been adequately resolved.

The article has a nice layout which can be built upon, but is far from meeting the Good article criteria. I am going to put this article on hold for seven days and give the editors an opportunity to work on it. However, my true recommendation would be to withdraw the nomination, collaborate with the wikiproject, and consider a peer review before re-nominating. -Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review of the article. I don't feel the article is in as dire shape as the review paints it, as this is a GAN and not a FAC. I will work to address each item and invite any others to assist. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mitico, first off, thank you for your review. One of the changes you made to the document based on your review was to split out Ordeal, Brotherhood, and Vigil into their own sections. I am not sure this is necessary due to the fact that the differences between the memberships is minor. The difference levels do not buy you anything other then the ability to see the ceremonies at the current level and below and a new sash. The only real differences between the three is the method for obtaining them (i.e. Ordeal voted by members of your troop, Brotherhood you do yourself, Vigil recognition from the OA itself.) I doubt the differences rank an entire section. Marauder40 (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If separate sections are not wanted, that is fine. My opinion is there could be enough content for each to have a section, but certainly more than two sentences for vigil seems appropriate. Mitico (talk, contribs) 15:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find any more, but Marauder is right—the OA is an honor society first, so the different ranks are just different ways of honoring people and not much more. --Eustress (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Following up

• As an exemple: The first paragraph of the membership section was difficult to follow. I tried to improve it as some sentences were too long. The usage of the word "since" feels weasel-ish to me. Add a comment like "Since most of the members of their unit are generally not members of the Order of the Arrow, the OA is said to be the largest membership organization whose members are selected primarily by non-members" needs a direct citation. I have added a number of tags and requests for expansion.

• Good point. I just removed it. --Eustress (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think more attention to history is appropriate. The ArrowCorps were founded in August 2008 & is covered significantly compared to the history of the order. Some important facts have been omitted. As an example: in the beginning there was only Ordeal & Brotherhood, the Vigil honor came along later. Black sashes were originally used, not white w/ red arrows. etc... I haven't studied the sources, and I know verification can be difficult, but the history of the order is important to the encyclopedic tone of an article.

• I've expanded the history significantly with the aid of the Goodman FA. I can look into the minor historical issues you raise, but keep in mind that while a FA must be comprehensive, a GA must only be broad. The "comprehensive" standard requires that no major fact or detail is omitted; the "broad" standard merely requires coverage of the main points. --Eustress (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Noted. Some of my examples may have been too detailed.

• I do not intend to come off too tough, but this article is not currently "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia." as stated on the Template:Grading scheme. Let's see what can be done in the next week & if its on the right path, I'll keep it open. -Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your continued input in this review. I believe all issues have now been addressed and that the article is ready for another evaluation. If you see any minor changes you can make to help make it more professional and encyclopedic, your help would be appreciated. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Eustress, good work so far but I am not sure one of the changes you made to the article flows well. Having a History section and then a "Purpose and origins" section doesn't really seem to flow well. IMHO "origins" should probably be worked into the History section similar to the way it is in the Goodman article or dropped entirely. Marauder40 (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• You're probably right, so I went ahead and merged the sections. --Eustress (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Second review

I am going to split the review here as there have been significant improvements to this article. I am impressed and happy to see it. -Mitico (talk, contribs) 14:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Vigil

Is Vigil a membership level or an honor? It is listed in both sections. —— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those technical things that can be a pain. When I was involved they were all officially called "Honors". If you look at this link [2] it calls them all honors. Recently I heard (from pretty big sources) that them came out and said technically Ordeal and Brotherhood are just called "Ordeal" and "Brotherhood" and Vigil is called "Vigil Honor", but I haven't seen anything official in writting saying that. I figure that barring something official, since the National site refers to them all as honors they should be referred to as honors on here. Marauder40 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

History

• At least a few organizations and traditions influenced Goodman and Edson in their development of their "camp fraternity", as they were looking for ways to improve the summer camp experience and to keep the older boys coming back --long & awkward. Not sure how to improve at the moment.

• I reworded and broke apart. --Eustress (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Authors suggest... which authors? This sentence should be cited?

• Citation follows the next sentence, but I've assuaged the issue with the reword. --Eustress (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

21st century

• There are presently 183,000 members - elsewhere 180,000 is used twice. a) I would refer to the number of members in this section or the member section, but not both b) Use either 180,000 or 183,000 consistently.

• Will use 180,000 (rounding) --Eustress (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• As of February 2009, the four stated purposes of the Order of the Arrow are: - why "As of? Does this change? Has it?

• No, the date was not needed. --Eustress (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Membership

• This number is approximately one-eighth of the total number of those registered in Boy Scouts of America. -I didn't see this in the cite. Original research?

• It's actually one-seventh, so good catch. I added a citation with hidden text on how the number is calculated. Not OR, just different rendering of data. --Eustress (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ceremonies

• I believe this section discusses the topic well, without giving up any "safeguarded" information. Nice job. Questions to consider:

• Does the "legend" deserve specific mention?

• No, I don't think this is needed either, since GA criterion 3b requires that the article stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." --Eustress (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ceremonialist names: Meteu, etc. worth a mention?

• See above response

• First mention of OA ceremony teams is in the Cub scout paragraph.

• Yeah, I think that's sufficient, and it doesn't have to be a ceremony team that goes...two OA youth is sufficient, but again, details. --Eustress (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Training

• Despite its length: LLD, NLS, and NLATS should be spelled out at first mention.

• Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall, great work. As there have been a great number of changes recently - there are still some tweaks that I assume will continue. Still a bit of copyediting & reference checking to be done on my behalf - so, I intend on letting the "dust settle" a little before considering a GA pass, but the article is on the right path. Mitico (talk, contribs) 22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to address the issues presented above. Thanks for your consideration. --Eustress (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Final

After re-reading the article I am promoting this article to GA status. Some remaining concerns about the reliability of some self-published work is relieved when noted that the information cited to them was also cited to other references or were used to describe personal experiences. Great work and a thank you to Eustress & Marauder40 for all of their efforts in improving this aticle! When I first reviewed this article I thought it was maybe a B-class article. With significant work, this article clearly meets the criteria of a good article. Any questions, let me know. -Mitico (talk, contribs) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)