Talk:Assemblies of God USA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good article Assemblies of God USA has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 12, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
September 4, 2011 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Christianity / Charismatic (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.
 

Position Papers Reference[edit]

Since you referenced the position papers, you should include a link to them (http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/index.cfm). 199.128.222.2 13:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AOGlogo.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:AOGlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

The "fundamental doctrines" could each be expanded a little to provide more detail about the specific meaning of some of them, and there are, in general, fewer reference citations than would generally be wanted, which is generally at least two per paragraph. The last section of notable churches and members of the body could probably be turned into two links in a separate "see also" section. Otehrwise, good work! John Carter (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo request[edit]

Can anyone please add an image of an Assemblies of God worship service, preferably from an "averaged sized" congregation as we already have images from more larger churches. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This review is transcluded from Talk:General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have finished my review. This article is very close to meeting the GA criteria, and has only a few issues that should be easy to fix. I will hold this article for up to a week to give the editors time to work on the article. Aaron north (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

YesY Looks good now. Aaron north (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    only minor citation issues. Overall, the use of primary sources seem to be used carefully where appropriate (facts and statements of official positions), the analysis in the article is referenced using journals and secondary scholarly work.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Looks good to me. This article looks very neutral, explaining both the good and the bad with nothing whitewashed.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I am confused about the caption under the Assemblies of God logo. What is the relevance of that phrase? I'm not sure that a caption is necessary at all for the logo in the infobox at the top.
  • It's the AG's motto. I'm fine removing it if you think it doesn't belong. Ltwin (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, if you can cite that and make it clear that it is the AG motto that should be fine. As it is, it looks like a random phrase placed under the picture with no explanation. Aaron north (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed it. My source is Poloma. She Mentions it in Crossroads, but I don't see it anywhere on the AG's website. It's on the Pentecostal Evangels website though. I think it looks better without the caption anyway. Ltwin (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • internet references need both a link and an accessed date. Most of them do, but some dont.
  • I'll work on this. Ltwin (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Ltwin (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a little awkward (and too informal) and should be improved. ("Around the same time African Americans were officially being barred from ordination, women were being given greater opportunities for leadership.")
  • Any suggestions on how I should rephrase it? Ltwin (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
hmmm... if I was editing it, I think I'd just simplify it. The sentence is a bit cumbersome. Maybe just "During the time when African Americans were barred from ordination, women began to receive greater opportunities for leadership". There's many other ways to rephrase it, its just that "were being barred" and "were being given" are both awkward. Aaron north (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Ltwin (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I notice you cite a couple books extensively. That is fine, but it may look better if referenced books are listed in a seperate section. One example is to use "references" to list all the details of the books used, and use a "notes" section for all the page numbers and other newspaper, web, etc citations. WP:CITESHORT includes this example. I don't think this is a requirement for the GA criteria, but it would make the references more concise and clear.
  • Yes I had thought about doing this many times, but never got to it. Will definitely do this eventually. Ltwin (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • More free or fair use images might be useful. Specifically, one interesting (to me) aspect of the article is the apparently significant differences between the style of local services. We basically have one image of a mega-church, perhaps it could be contrasted with a picture of a smaller more intimate service, and/or singing?
  • Yes I will try to find what I can. In general all AG churches would be considered low church, but the style can differ. Some churches go the ultra contemporary route - lights, very contemporary music. Others go the more traditional route - standard church architecture and may blend praise and worship music with hymns. Some churches give a lot of freedom for the congregation to exercise spiritual gifts and exuberant or enthusiastic praise, while others have chosen to place a lot less emphasis on public display of spiritual gifts and enthusiasm structuring their church services where this is discouraged. I will try to find a picture that is representative of a more "average sized" AG congregation.

Thanks for reviewing this. I will work on getting what's needed done. Thanks again. Ltwin (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Post-review comments[edit]

I found some very nice images from Wikimedia Commons, mostly of building exteriors. I didn't find any pictures inside more modest churches. However, I found a picture of an AG Hispanic church and day school which makes a great addition to the History section on women and minorities. Also, I found a great picture of the national headquarters which I added to the Structure section. Ltwin (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Removal of external link[edit]

I have removed an external link to the AG's Church Multiplication Network which was placed in the "Ministries" section of the article in good faith. While the AG has many ministries and only a few are currently listed in the article, we need to be careful not to create link farms. If a ministry of the AG has a Wikipedia article, I have no problem with it being listed here, but if it has no article then it probably isn't notable enough on its own to merit listing in this article or an article just hasn't been written yet. I would welcome a Wikipedia article on the missionary work of the AG in general. The official AG website is listed in the "External links" section. It offers information on a variety of the denomination's activities that do not merit attention in an encyclopedia article. Ltwin (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Too long, uncommon name[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of AmericaAssemblies of God USA Yes, this may be the full official name, but it is not what most people call this denomination. The lead even indicates the more common name "Assemblies of God USA," and the article only uses "Assemblies of God" throughout. This title is just going to keep people from finding this article.

It's pretty common for a shorter name to be used for the title of an article, with the longer name mentioned only in the lead. I think we should do that.

Or, to put it in policy terms, almost no reputable sources refer to this denomination by its current title. We need to follow WP:COMMONNAME. — trlkly 13:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. As the editor responsible for writing most of the article and nominating it for good article status, I think this would be a good idea, even though I'm pretty sure I'm the one who chose the longer name. :) Ltwin (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

CfD nomination of Category:Pentecostal pastors[edit]

Information.svg

Category:Pentecostal pastors and related categories have been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Ltwin (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assemblies of God USA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Assemblies of God USA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)