Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alpha Phi Omega article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Alpha Phi Omega was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do we still need to have the list of all-male chapters at co-ed institutions? I understand that even Delta has gone co-ed now. Henrymrx ( t· c) 05:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It was under my impression that if Delta were to be forced to go coed, the chapter would formally disband and file a petition to have the chapter listing permanently removed from Alpha Phi Omega, i.e. if a new Chapter started in Auburn it would not be Delta chapter. Of course that was back when I was an active alumni and kept up with such things. Personally I find this better than being forced to go coed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.144.51 ( talk) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
From what I've been told by my fellow Delta brothers the chapter has not yet gone coed, thankfully. I received this information from an immediate past president and recent graduate of Auburn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.121.154 ( talk) 17:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Right now I'm working on a page for APO-USA chapters at User:Naraht/Alpha Phi Omega chapters. It's from a file from the national office, there are some issues such as active petitioning efforts showing up as Active. I still have to add/change entries in that column for active/inactive/PG/IG/closed. Right now I'm working on getting rid of as many red links as I can. I'm going to leave the one for Central YMCA College since there *should* be an article on it. Naraht ( talk) 19:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: weebiloobil ( talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! My name is weebiloobil ( talk), and I will be reviewing Alpha Phi Omega. I see this article has already been de-listed, so hopefully this won't happen again. Feel free to leave comments here or on my talk page. Good luck!
PS This review is being undertaken as part of the April backlog elimination drive. Why not review an article or two yourself? weebiloobil ( talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Before I start, I would like to present these:
Criterion 2 of the Good Article Criteria
"Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
(c) it contains no original research."
From WP:SELFPUB
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
Now we've got that out of the way, we can begin.
The major problem I have with this article (there are a couple of minor bits below as well) is the self-referencing; a massive 83% (35/42) of the references are directly affiliated with the fraternity itself. Whilst some measure of self-referencing is expected in an article with as large a subject as this, I think a few more outside references might be in order. The paragraph Chapters is unreferenced - this contains statistics, which should be referenced (the same paragraph also contains a stray bracket). Finally, reference-wise, the link for reference 13 is no longer pointing to the right place.
As such, I'm placing this article on hold. There are only three quick things to sort out, but the biggest problem is the referencing. Therefore, the key aspect that will get this passed is discussion. I'm not expecting a load of references, just a discussion of how best to approach this.
WP:SELFPUB is ambiguous, so I will pass this article if there is consensus reached about how many third-party references there should be so the discussion here will influence my decision on how many independent references are required Subsequent edit made at 20:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC). Good luck, and I'll be back to comment in any discussions -
weebiloobil (
talk) 13:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The referencing issue is absolutely critical, and you may have under-estimated the extent to which the refs are, sometimes indirectly, actually not independent sources. As I commented at another fraternity / sorority review, I would query how likely the article would be to survive at AfD on notability grounds. I think this is a definite fail, particularly as there are other problems - really we do not need to know every year's "theme" for National Service Week, the addressed of offices, the organisation's various programs. Personally, i think the article is coming close to being adspam for the fraternity, but that's just my view. In any case, i think most material unable to be supported using independent third party reliable sources should be stripped out. Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the reference for 13 and will try to use Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities for as much of the infobox type information as I can find. The other third party source that particularly springs to mind is Boy Scouts of America documentation.
In regards to WP:SELFPUB, one question that I have is a reference from the current organization website is superior to that of published magazines of the organizations which are 50-70 years old. Some of the references could be shifted from one to other.
I'm confused by the objection to co-ed. Co-ed is linked in the second paragraph.
The history does need to be compressed, the issue of the fraternity allowing women, while important, contains a great deal of unreferenced information.
Also, as a *radical* solution to some of these issues, would splitting the article into Alpha Phi Omega of the USA (left at Alpha Phi Omega and Alpha Phi Omega of the Philippines (combining the second with History of Alpha Phi Omega in the Philippines) and moved to Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) help with bringing this article which would only be about the American organization to GA? References for the Philippines have been more difficult to get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable to discuss here what should be kept under the National Service Week Themes. It think there are two separate issues here that have been brought up.
I'm going to have to agree with Naraht on this one; I think the list of NSW themes is very relevant to the topic, as it shows (a) the history of the National Service Week program and (b) the fact that it has covered a broad number of very relevant areas of service and not just focused on a single area. As for being referenced internally, I don't see a problem with that -- it's the best reference for this sort of thing. Sure, we could probably go back and dig up old newspaper articles (probably mostly from student newspapers) for each and every single topic by year. But in this case, the organization has provided this, and there's no reason not to trust it.
As for your comments about it being "unencyclopedic", I have to disagree. How do you define and "encyclopedia" and what kind of content do you think should be in one? Surely, this sort of thing would never appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica -- heck, they probably don't even have an article about Alpha Phi Omega. But then again, Britannica wouldn't cover individual episodes of Family Guy, either. But it seems to me that in the 21st century, Wikipedia has been completely redefining the term "encyclopedia", to the point where it's arguably now the #1 site people go to when they're looking for an encyclopedia. Some of the more obscure and odd articles on Wikipedia are what makes it unique, and I see these bits of trivia, properly organized and presented, as one of the strengths of the site. I certainly don't think that saying something is "unencyclopedic" is a good enough reason for deleting it. WTF? ( talk) 02:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I added a bunch of external sources for the various service projects that are done, mostly from newspapers and other things found in the google news archives. I'm planning on deleting the list of all-male chapters since that is not referenced (and yes, I probably added it all those many years ago). What other areas do people want to see with more references added? And what areas do people think are appropriate to try to suppliment/replace with external references. I don't see that many paragraphs without some sort of references at this time other than ones where there is a short paragraph associated with a *much* larger article that is the main one for the section. Naraht ( talk) 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This review will be closed tomorrow at approximately 2pm UTC. The edits made in the intervening time will influence the result - weebiloobil ( talk) 19:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, some figures:
57 total references
22 independent references
34 self-references
1 broken reference (35)
which makes the article 60.7% reliant on sources from Alpha Phi Omega itself.
Alas, I deem this too high to fulfil "not based primarily on such sources", and so, given the time allowed for improvements, I feel I have to fail this article.
Other issues include:
Feel free to contact me with any questions. If you feel this review has been conducted incorrectly, Good Article reassessment is the place to go. I hope to see this article at GA and FA very soon. weebiloobil ( talk) 16:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sort of torn where the fact that APO was a Point of Light should go. ( http://archive.pointsoflight.org/awards/dpol/winner.cfm?AwardNum=2397 April 14th, 2003) ideas (or put it in :) ) Naraht ( talk) 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It is my understanding that what was previously on the wikipedia page for APO was a factual recollection of the recent events dealing with open membership in the past couple of years. I did not find it offensive or biased. Why was it taken down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.179.91 ( talk) 17:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree and understand about accuracy and noteworthiness. I would suggest that as long as the information is accurate according to APO and Alpha Delta officials, then I would say it belongs on there. As long as it remains historical and factual and does not become a biased representation of either side. From what I understand, this may be a hot topic depending on who you talk to. So, we always need to be careful with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.179.91 ( talk) 13:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It is the largest fraternity in the world for starters. But also, I mean a listing of all the national service weeks (20 lines) is probably more undo weight than 2 lines devoted to something that was directly caused by the requirement of open membership. It provides unique insight and information on the fraternity that is useful in an encyclopedic article. There are other parts of the article that do not do that and have not been eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.179.91 ( talk) 15:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that given the fact that the initial 6 advisors are all listed, that the other 13 founders should be added. If so, should we do it in text or as a bulleted list? Naraht ( talk) 16:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion... SRB should not be mentioned on this page, OTOH a mention on the History of Alpha Phi Omega in the Philippines would be quite reasonable if decent sources could be found. I googled for "scouts royale brotherhood" and 1975. I found no hits in the first 100 that would consider a reasonable non-primary source for the year that it was founded. If *that* can't be found, what is the possibility of getting good secondary sources. (And yes, this does have the standard issue of references for fraternities in the Philippines being *considerably* more difficult to find clean references on than US fraternities for several reasons. :( ) Naraht ( talk) 18:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears that all of the apo.org links used as reference citations are now no longer functional, as the national fraternity has launched a new design the website. One big issue seems to be that there no longer appears to be a comprehensive list of chapters on the site, though there is a "chapter finder" tool. That can, of course, confirm that a chapter at the school is or has existed, but it's still not a list. WTF? ( talk) 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I think one of the major problems with this article is that it's too long. There is a lot of information here that just isn't going to be of interest to a general audience. Things like the list of National Service Week themes and the list of National Office locations do not need to be on here. That information could be moved to one of the APO-centered wiki projects out there.
I realize that most of the editors of this article are fraternity members like me. This information may be of great interest to us and to other members of the Fraternity, but I think that it very unlikely to be of interest to a general audience. That general audience is the intended audience of this encyclopedia and we should tailor the article to that.
Thoughts? Henrymrx ( t· c) 01:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see this article before the failed good article review in 2010, but it looks like it's gotten at least a bit better on the sourcing since according to an email I got from Alpha Phi Omega (they were trying to recruit me) this article contains good information that isn't on their official website (woo hoo!). That being said, I have a few points of constructive criticism that I'd like to bring up since I don't feel comfortable editing this without any prior knowledge of the organization, as I'm sure there's a lot more qualified people out there who will probably jump on it the moment they see this.
1) After reading the article a couple times, I still have no idea exactly how the fraternity was affiliated with the Boy Scouts. Was it a stamp of approval, a gold star, the authority to change bylaws... to me it's unclear since I know nothing of the topic.
2) The last paragraph in the section "Membership in Alpha Phi Omega-USA opened to women" sounds suspiciously as if it was almost lifted word for word from the original source "Torch and Trefoil" which is a publication by Alpha Phi Omega... it just smelt of promotional tone. However, I don't have access to the source, so it'd be great if somebody checked that.
3) It seems logical to me that the article about the bylaw change that resulted in the formation of Alpha Delta would have a link "See more: Alpha Delta" or "Main article: Alpha Delta". It's important enough to Alpha Delta's history that it should have a more significant link than the in-line one already present.
4) Although National Service Week is important, I really don't think listing every theme since 1987 is really necessary. Frankly, I just scrolled past the list without reading it.
Other then that, looks pretty good. If you see any edits by me, chances are they're copyediting for tone or grammar, since I did see a few things towards the end that needed grammatical fixing. Farewell! Luthien22 ( talk) 15:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
For the points in @ Jrhmdtraum:'s posting.
@ Jrhmdtraum: I reverted your add back of your only cited sentence:
For the other chapter:
— Lentower ( talk) 17:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Alpha Phi Omega. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alpha Phi Omega. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ams.ubc.ca/clubs/joining-a-club/big-list-of-clubs/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alpha Phi Omega: Epsilon Mu Chapter. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Naraht ( talk) 22:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alpha Phi Omega article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Alpha Phi Omega was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do we still need to have the list of all-male chapters at co-ed institutions? I understand that even Delta has gone co-ed now. Henrymrx ( t· c) 05:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It was under my impression that if Delta were to be forced to go coed, the chapter would formally disband and file a petition to have the chapter listing permanently removed from Alpha Phi Omega, i.e. if a new Chapter started in Auburn it would not be Delta chapter. Of course that was back when I was an active alumni and kept up with such things. Personally I find this better than being forced to go coed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.144.51 ( talk) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
From what I've been told by my fellow Delta brothers the chapter has not yet gone coed, thankfully. I received this information from an immediate past president and recent graduate of Auburn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.121.154 ( talk) 17:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Right now I'm working on a page for APO-USA chapters at User:Naraht/Alpha Phi Omega chapters. It's from a file from the national office, there are some issues such as active petitioning efforts showing up as Active. I still have to add/change entries in that column for active/inactive/PG/IG/closed. Right now I'm working on getting rid of as many red links as I can. I'm going to leave the one for Central YMCA College since there *should* be an article on it. Naraht ( talk) 19:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: weebiloobil ( talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! My name is weebiloobil ( talk), and I will be reviewing Alpha Phi Omega. I see this article has already been de-listed, so hopefully this won't happen again. Feel free to leave comments here or on my talk page. Good luck!
PS This review is being undertaken as part of the April backlog elimination drive. Why not review an article or two yourself? weebiloobil ( talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Before I start, I would like to present these:
Criterion 2 of the Good Article Criteria
"Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
(c) it contains no original research."
From WP:SELFPUB
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
Now we've got that out of the way, we can begin.
The major problem I have with this article (there are a couple of minor bits below as well) is the self-referencing; a massive 83% (35/42) of the references are directly affiliated with the fraternity itself. Whilst some measure of self-referencing is expected in an article with as large a subject as this, I think a few more outside references might be in order. The paragraph Chapters is unreferenced - this contains statistics, which should be referenced (the same paragraph also contains a stray bracket). Finally, reference-wise, the link for reference 13 is no longer pointing to the right place.
As such, I'm placing this article on hold. There are only three quick things to sort out, but the biggest problem is the referencing. Therefore, the key aspect that will get this passed is discussion. I'm not expecting a load of references, just a discussion of how best to approach this.
WP:SELFPUB is ambiguous, so I will pass this article if there is consensus reached about how many third-party references there should be so the discussion here will influence my decision on how many independent references are required Subsequent edit made at 20:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC). Good luck, and I'll be back to comment in any discussions -
weebiloobil (
talk) 13:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The referencing issue is absolutely critical, and you may have under-estimated the extent to which the refs are, sometimes indirectly, actually not independent sources. As I commented at another fraternity / sorority review, I would query how likely the article would be to survive at AfD on notability grounds. I think this is a definite fail, particularly as there are other problems - really we do not need to know every year's "theme" for National Service Week, the addressed of offices, the organisation's various programs. Personally, i think the article is coming close to being adspam for the fraternity, but that's just my view. In any case, i think most material unable to be supported using independent third party reliable sources should be stripped out. Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the reference for 13 and will try to use Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities for as much of the infobox type information as I can find. The other third party source that particularly springs to mind is Boy Scouts of America documentation.
In regards to WP:SELFPUB, one question that I have is a reference from the current organization website is superior to that of published magazines of the organizations which are 50-70 years old. Some of the references could be shifted from one to other.
I'm confused by the objection to co-ed. Co-ed is linked in the second paragraph.
The history does need to be compressed, the issue of the fraternity allowing women, while important, contains a great deal of unreferenced information.
Also, as a *radical* solution to some of these issues, would splitting the article into Alpha Phi Omega of the USA (left at Alpha Phi Omega and Alpha Phi Omega of the Philippines (combining the second with History of Alpha Phi Omega in the Philippines) and moved to Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) help with bringing this article which would only be about the American organization to GA? References for the Philippines have been more difficult to get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable to discuss here what should be kept under the National Service Week Themes. It think there are two separate issues here that have been brought up.
I'm going to have to agree with Naraht on this one; I think the list of NSW themes is very relevant to the topic, as it shows (a) the history of the National Service Week program and (b) the fact that it has covered a broad number of very relevant areas of service and not just focused on a single area. As for being referenced internally, I don't see a problem with that -- it's the best reference for this sort of thing. Sure, we could probably go back and dig up old newspaper articles (probably mostly from student newspapers) for each and every single topic by year. But in this case, the organization has provided this, and there's no reason not to trust it.
As for your comments about it being "unencyclopedic", I have to disagree. How do you define and "encyclopedia" and what kind of content do you think should be in one? Surely, this sort of thing would never appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica -- heck, they probably don't even have an article about Alpha Phi Omega. But then again, Britannica wouldn't cover individual episodes of Family Guy, either. But it seems to me that in the 21st century, Wikipedia has been completely redefining the term "encyclopedia", to the point where it's arguably now the #1 site people go to when they're looking for an encyclopedia. Some of the more obscure and odd articles on Wikipedia are what makes it unique, and I see these bits of trivia, properly organized and presented, as one of the strengths of the site. I certainly don't think that saying something is "unencyclopedic" is a good enough reason for deleting it. WTF? ( talk) 02:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I added a bunch of external sources for the various service projects that are done, mostly from newspapers and other things found in the google news archives. I'm planning on deleting the list of all-male chapters since that is not referenced (and yes, I probably added it all those many years ago). What other areas do people want to see with more references added? And what areas do people think are appropriate to try to suppliment/replace with external references. I don't see that many paragraphs without some sort of references at this time other than ones where there is a short paragraph associated with a *much* larger article that is the main one for the section. Naraht ( talk) 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This review will be closed tomorrow at approximately 2pm UTC. The edits made in the intervening time will influence the result - weebiloobil ( talk) 19:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, some figures:
57 total references
22 independent references
34 self-references
1 broken reference (35)
which makes the article 60.7% reliant on sources from Alpha Phi Omega itself.
Alas, I deem this too high to fulfil "not based primarily on such sources", and so, given the time allowed for improvements, I feel I have to fail this article.
Other issues include:
Feel free to contact me with any questions. If you feel this review has been conducted incorrectly, Good Article reassessment is the place to go. I hope to see this article at GA and FA very soon. weebiloobil ( talk) 16:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sort of torn where the fact that APO was a Point of Light should go. ( http://archive.pointsoflight.org/awards/dpol/winner.cfm?AwardNum=2397 April 14th, 2003) ideas (or put it in :) ) Naraht ( talk) 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It is my understanding that what was previously on the wikipedia page for APO was a factual recollection of the recent events dealing with open membership in the past couple of years. I did not find it offensive or biased. Why was it taken down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.179.91 ( talk) 17:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree and understand about accuracy and noteworthiness. I would suggest that as long as the information is accurate according to APO and Alpha Delta officials, then I would say it belongs on there. As long as it remains historical and factual and does not become a biased representation of either side. From what I understand, this may be a hot topic depending on who you talk to. So, we always need to be careful with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.179.91 ( talk) 13:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It is the largest fraternity in the world for starters. But also, I mean a listing of all the national service weeks (20 lines) is probably more undo weight than 2 lines devoted to something that was directly caused by the requirement of open membership. It provides unique insight and information on the fraternity that is useful in an encyclopedic article. There are other parts of the article that do not do that and have not been eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.179.91 ( talk) 15:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that given the fact that the initial 6 advisors are all listed, that the other 13 founders should be added. If so, should we do it in text or as a bulleted list? Naraht ( talk) 16:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion... SRB should not be mentioned on this page, OTOH a mention on the History of Alpha Phi Omega in the Philippines would be quite reasonable if decent sources could be found. I googled for "scouts royale brotherhood" and 1975. I found no hits in the first 100 that would consider a reasonable non-primary source for the year that it was founded. If *that* can't be found, what is the possibility of getting good secondary sources. (And yes, this does have the standard issue of references for fraternities in the Philippines being *considerably* more difficult to find clean references on than US fraternities for several reasons. :( ) Naraht ( talk) 18:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears that all of the apo.org links used as reference citations are now no longer functional, as the national fraternity has launched a new design the website. One big issue seems to be that there no longer appears to be a comprehensive list of chapters on the site, though there is a "chapter finder" tool. That can, of course, confirm that a chapter at the school is or has existed, but it's still not a list. WTF? ( talk) 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I think one of the major problems with this article is that it's too long. There is a lot of information here that just isn't going to be of interest to a general audience. Things like the list of National Service Week themes and the list of National Office locations do not need to be on here. That information could be moved to one of the APO-centered wiki projects out there.
I realize that most of the editors of this article are fraternity members like me. This information may be of great interest to us and to other members of the Fraternity, but I think that it very unlikely to be of interest to a general audience. That general audience is the intended audience of this encyclopedia and we should tailor the article to that.
Thoughts? Henrymrx ( t· c) 01:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see this article before the failed good article review in 2010, but it looks like it's gotten at least a bit better on the sourcing since according to an email I got from Alpha Phi Omega (they were trying to recruit me) this article contains good information that isn't on their official website (woo hoo!). That being said, I have a few points of constructive criticism that I'd like to bring up since I don't feel comfortable editing this without any prior knowledge of the organization, as I'm sure there's a lot more qualified people out there who will probably jump on it the moment they see this.
1) After reading the article a couple times, I still have no idea exactly how the fraternity was affiliated with the Boy Scouts. Was it a stamp of approval, a gold star, the authority to change bylaws... to me it's unclear since I know nothing of the topic.
2) The last paragraph in the section "Membership in Alpha Phi Omega-USA opened to women" sounds suspiciously as if it was almost lifted word for word from the original source "Torch and Trefoil" which is a publication by Alpha Phi Omega... it just smelt of promotional tone. However, I don't have access to the source, so it'd be great if somebody checked that.
3) It seems logical to me that the article about the bylaw change that resulted in the formation of Alpha Delta would have a link "See more: Alpha Delta" or "Main article: Alpha Delta". It's important enough to Alpha Delta's history that it should have a more significant link than the in-line one already present.
4) Although National Service Week is important, I really don't think listing every theme since 1987 is really necessary. Frankly, I just scrolled past the list without reading it.
Other then that, looks pretty good. If you see any edits by me, chances are they're copyediting for tone or grammar, since I did see a few things towards the end that needed grammatical fixing. Farewell! Luthien22 ( talk) 15:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
For the points in @ Jrhmdtraum:'s posting.
@ Jrhmdtraum: I reverted your add back of your only cited sentence:
For the other chapter:
— Lentower ( talk) 17:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Alpha Phi Omega. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alpha Phi Omega. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ams.ubc.ca/clubs/joining-a-club/big-list-of-clubs/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alpha Phi Omega: Epsilon Mu Chapter. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Naraht ( talk) 22:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)