 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about CAFOD. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about CAFOD at the Reference desk. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POV edit
'CAFOD do beautiful things, to beautiful hearts' is totally POV, and totally outa there. Larklight 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"Criticism" section edit
I've slightly improved (I think) the "Criticism" section by adding quotation marks around a direct quotation and removing some heavy POV. However, the entire section still has a POV undercurrent, and if I had the time I'd rewrite it entirely. Anyone want to help with that? AnturiaethwrTalk 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)CARINA
PR/NPOV edit
Much as I don't like to flag charity articles for NPOV issues (even if they ARE Catholic...) this article reads like an advert and has some completely unsubstantiated claims in there. e.g. the "Compassion" section.
The claims may well be true but they're too subjective to be stated as fact without some clear evidence and re-writing. You can't state things like "CAFOD is deeply affected by the suffering of those...etc" for example. If that's part of the organisation's PR material then it should be stated as such, and not as a neutral viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.169.163 (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CAFOD. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130709191728/http://www.bfriars.ox.ac.uk/casas_intro.php to http://www.bfriars.ox.ac.uk/casas_intro.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 23:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Use of etc. edit
Is it really encyclopedic to use the term "etc"? Also, the sentence after using this term says "They also put adverts on TV" but would it not be more encyclopedic to put the word "television" in full? Vorbee (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Sources edit
@North of Eden and Peterkingiron: This article appears to have no reliable sources. Where is the "significant coverage in reliable (or contextually reliable, as indicated by Peterkingiron) sources" referred to in the AfD? — Jeff G. ツ 14:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)