Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1

Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: no consensus; default to keep. Most reviewer concerns seem to have been addressed with the exception of the article's completeness. While some views have changed during the reassessment, this outstanding concern remains a sticking point for others. However, because it revolves around subjective interpretations of GA criterion 3(a), and because determining the notability of an article is outside GA's (and by extension GAR's) remit, I feel unable to assign enough weight to this point to close the reassessment as a delist. On the other hand, the counter-arguments have clearly failed to persuade everyone that 3(a) is a weak criterion, and the reviewer objections may be a better reflection of current GA practice than a reading of the criteria would imply. I would encourage further discussion of this and the related wider issues with the GA community so that project-wide consensus can be established, and of course the article should continue to be developed as new information becomes available. Thanks to all for your contributions to a highly involved GAR, and especially to those who have worked so hard to improve the article during its time here. EyeSerene^talk 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology is about a 1985 publication of some collected writings of the major literary figure William Burroughs. It includes a short story, first published in 1971, and other writings and newspaper articles written by Burroughs.

• The article is too wide ranging and does not remain focused. Almost one half of the article is the "Background" section, much of it relating to his views and experiences with Scientology, with references are to biographies of Burroughs. Suggest some of this be merged into the biography article William S. Burroughs, which does not mention this publication.

• The article gives repeated negative information regarding Scientology with no balance. The publication section, which summarizes the individual articles, seems to repeat much of the material in the first section. The article references an anti-Scientology writer, Paulette Cooper and, in general, portrays Scientology in a negative light beyond the need to do so. The article fails to mention that much of the material in the article conflates Scientology with psychiatry, that the articles are as much anti-psychiatry as they are anti-Scientology.

• There is no "Critical evaluation" or "Critical analysis" or "Critical response" section. Since this is a literary work by a major literary figure, this seems to me a critical omission. There is no explanation for publishing short opinion articles together with a short story that nothing to do with Scientology.

I believe these problems with the article can be remedied by treating Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology as a literary work by providing proper context and literary criticism. Also, the excessive repetition of information on Scientology (I do not know whether the information is correct) can be reduced, as the specifics of Scientology is not as important and the qualities of literary style and presentation. More emphasis is needed on a critical view of the work, as would be required for any GA article on a book, film, comic book, video game etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

<Discussion cut to talk>

To be clear (and as we already explained to Mattisse), we believe there are no more reliable sources to consult and that creating a "Reception" section will be impossible at this point in time. As I pointed out to Mattisse earlier today, the bibliography of Burroughs' works and criticism on Burroughs that I consulted for this article does not list any contemporary reviews of the book. We have therefore relied on literary criticism and Burroughs biographies (which are, of course, better anyway, since they are scholarly). Perhaps in the future scholars will do more work on this book. As of now, we have included the information we found in reliable sources. Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

<Discussion cut to talk>

• Comment: I don't know if I am uninvolved enough. I gave a brief comment on the PR for the book, apparently opening this astonishingly quick-growing can of worms. Numerous debates were recently held on the FAC talk page regarding short articles. It seems to me that many of the editors who commented in those debates made the point that GA is for articles that cannot become FA because of their length, or a lack of sources that should cover FA-type depth. I have not checked my library for sources on this topic, but I will do that tomorrow. I think that if Awadewit cannot find such sources they probably do not exist, but I will look for myself as I said I would do on the PR. Awadewit's access to info and mine are very similar. If nothing comes from my search, however, it should be noted that GA criteria simply state that an article should be comprehensive; GA criteria does not focus on specifics for types of articles, such as books, nonfiction or otherwise. --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Contributions to GAR discussions are welcome from all editors, be they "involved", "uninvolved" or something inbetween. Thanks for commenting, and I hope you will comment further. Geometry guy 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree that GA criteria should not be so strict that it prevents otherwise well written articles from being passed because it is not complete on an absolute scale. Rather for an GA promotion, using all available sources should be enough as long as the article reasonable covers the content. These articles need appropriate recognition as a GA if they are otherwise FA quality work. I'm not commenting on this particular article, but the principle.

• As well, if the issue was still be discussed on the article talk page, then perhaps this GAR is premature. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• not a GA Excuse me if I seem to ramble, but I had to think out what principles to apply, because it's hard to categorise the book as described in the article:
  • I'd be inclined to regard this as a book of essays rather than a literary work, since all but one of its parts is a non-fiction essay or article, and the short story is about the same theme as the essays. Does anyone know of any recent FAs of GAs on collections of essays? (promoted mid-2007 or later, because most articles promoted before barely reach B-class now).
  • Since precedents are hard to find, I'll boldy venture my own opinion. An article about any book needs some some 3rd-party commentary in order to get any "seal of approval". In the case of Burrough's opinons about Scientology, there's plenty of background, but nothing about how reasonable they were considered by other commentators, or whether they had any influence on academics', politicians' or the public's perceptions of Scientology. Whether you consider Burrough's essays to be in the realm of politics, philosophy, sociology or whatever, I'd expect coverage of these aspects.
  • The real problem is that the book seems to fall short on WP:NOTABILITY. Cirt, Awadewit and Fainites, who all support this article's GA status, admit the lack of 3rd-party commentary. I did my own searches and all I got from ordinary Google, apart from this article, was a collection of sales pages and library catalogues - I didn't even see a blog post. When I tried Google Scholar, in case there was some academic commentary that didn't have high enough page rank to appear fairly high in the ordinary Google results, I got exactly one hit - the work by Urban, cited in the article - but that's about Scientology, and mentions Burroughs' book only in passing.
  • If 3rd-party commentary can't be found, the article should fail for not meeting WP:WIAGA's requirement of "broad" coverage. --Philcha (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

<Discussion cut to talk>

• • • • Pilcha, there is third-party commentary - by William Burroughs scholars. See the article's bibliography. This article more than meets the notability requirements. There is peer-reviewed scholarship on it. Awadewit (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
        • (ec)I can't comment on whether there is peer-reviewed scholarship for it, as I'll admit Google is not omniscient, especially for subjects before the rise of the WWW. However the article shows little sign of such peer-reviewed scholarship, except perhaps about the background, e.g. the roots of B's opinions about Scientology. But that's not enough to answer the most important question of all, "Why should anyone care?" Apparently no-one thought the book important enough to agree or even disagree with the opinions it expresses, and it apears to have had no influence - which is a pretty poor showing for a book of what seem to be rather polemical essays. You'll have noticed that my perspective is quite different from that of Mattisse, who treats the book as literature. However I agree with her statement "Not all articles can be a GA". This probably happens to many editors. It's happened twice to me recently. IMO in terms of coverage Next (novel) (I enjoyed it the most of the Crichton books I've read) is better than Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology, but it's far form a GA. Amstrad PCW is about a range of personal computers whose early models were briliant for their time and changed the PC market for ever, but the late models have dropped right off the radar (probably deservedly). I suggest you apply your obvious love of literature to a more worthy subject. --Philcha (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I consider all works by an author like William S. Burroughs to be worth writing about. Of the 11 sources, 9 are peer-reviewed. Considering the essays in the book prompted Scientology to reply, the book obviously did make an impact. Moreover, I was unaware that GA had higher standards than FA. FA requires that a comprehensive search of published material be made. That is what we have done. If GA requires more, that surprises me. Awadewit (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Your comment raises some interesting issues. Re "all works by an author like William S. Burroughs to be worth writing about", I seem to remeber something about notability not being inherited, and I think that applies here - Burroughs is notable, but this particular book apparently isn't.
            • WP:WIAFA requires "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". IMO this article fails to place the subject in context, apparently because the real world unkindly provided no context. So it should fail FAC quite thoroughly. GA's trickier, we have the occasional "how broad is broad" discussion at WT:GAN - and then remember why the previous one got nowhere. Mattisse has reviwed tons of articles for GA, and has often been complimented both for her industry and thoroughness (including by other reviewers) and for her helpfulness (by nominators). I've done a few GA reviews, with which people seem to have been pleased, even when I failed articles. If you don't trust our judgement on the issue of coverage, you could ask for further comments at WT:GAN or WT:GAR --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
              • • Actually the more relevant FA criterion is 1c "(c) well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic". There has been frequently discussion about the meaning of this at FA. I would like it to mean that an article has to be comprehensive in the way you say, but it does not mean that. FA requires only that an article consult the published literature, not what we wished were published. If FA required what you are saying, most popular culture topics would not be able to be featured, for example. I myself have reviewed numerous GAs and successfully shepherded around 30 articles through GA. I am familiar with its standards. Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • Per notability, are you saying that a book written by William S. Burroughs, one of the most famous writers of the 20th century, and referred to in several books of peer-reviewed literary criticism is not notable? By what part of the policy? Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • Awadewit, I suspect we could go on forever like this, and possibly drive everyone else into some other activity like trying to reform vandals. If you want to continue, I suggest you open a sub-page somewhere and then drop me a messge. --Philcha (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

<Discussion cut to talk>

Neutral on article for now (need to read it more thoroughly). But i agree with Matisse that some critical reception & impact is essential for all GAs of artistic works. Otherwise there is nothing to stop every minor work that has only production info and plot summary from being GA, because no-one has ever reviewed it. In this case, it seems extremely unlikely that newspapers or lit reviews don't exist, as he is so influential and famous, but if they do not, how is this notable? And even if others disagree, it is a legitimate grounds for a community GAR - it is not as though this were a unilateral delisting.YobMod 08:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no contemporary reviews. As I explained above and to Mattisse before she listed this for GAR, I consulted a bibliography of Burroughs' works and criticism on Burroughs. It lists reviews for the works that have them, but lists none for this one. I would like to point out that books are not only notable because they were reviewed at the time they were published. Note that this reception section, in a featured article by Mary Wollstonecraft was written without any reviews. Also, Jane Austen's novel Mansfield Park initially received no reviews (see Reception history of Jane Austen). Are these books not notable? The reason there is more scholarship on them is because these authors have been dead longer. Burroughs scholars have started writing about him and his works, and we have included their views in the Ali's Smile article. I can only imagine that they will publish more over the course of time and the article can be improved once that has happened. Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

<See the talk page for further discussion concerning which articles can be GAs>.

• If no info on reception exists, then I think the article can be a GA without it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural comments. <See the talk page for general discussion of the GAR process>. Some practicalities.

• This reassessment is getting long. In the past, it has been helpful to move to the reassessment talk page any discussion which is not directly related to whether the article meets the GA criteria or not. This requires some sensitivity, but it is quite likely that this is needed here. I'm likely to do this, so please let me know if you disagree with my choices.
• Any discussion about the motivation, good faith etc. of this reassessment should take place elsewhere, not here. Geometry guy 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think moving the whole discussion so far to the talk page would be a good idea, inviting contributors to comment on whether this particular article passes or fails the criteria. If it is kept, then maybe a discussion is needed to clarify the criteria. Slipknot demo failed twice for not being sufficiently broad, even though it contained every known piece of info, and its inability to ever become GA was endorsed by some during its Topic nomination (which happens quite often), but opposed by others. If consensus says GAs cannot be failed in such situations, then the criteria need to say so, and all such articles need to be looked at again.YobMod 07:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now made some cuts to talk. I think cutting the whole discussion would throw out the baby too, so I've trimmed, leaving links. If anyone has any problems with this, please start a new section on the talk page. Geometry guy 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite so absolute is it? As in can never be failed, must always be failed. If there is very little sourced information at all then an article may never become a GA. However, if there is good sourced information on many aspects, should it automatically fail because there is no information on one particular aspect where, if there was information it would be included? On the latter, from my reading of GG's contribution, the answer is no. There must be a borderline somewhere but no doubt the edges are fuzzy.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As Fainites says, the edges are fuzzy. AFAIK the most recent relevant discussions at WT:GAN have been about a California law that is being challenged in the courts, Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics and a book to be released Nov 2009. In these cases there are issues about both stability and gaps in coverage, but they all have fairly easily identifiable future end-points. The future is less predictable for Burrough's book, but Awadewit anticipates that commentary will gradually emerge (above, at 16:49, 6 May 2009). I'm less confident of that as: this collection of B's articles was published 1973; I'm a lot more familiar with with evolution-related topics than with literay or Scientology related topics (understatement!), but I notice that in evolution The Panda's Thumb (book), a collection of previously-published essays by Stephen Jay Gould, got some commentary pretty quickly and I bet I could find more, especially if I searched on the individual essays. How's that for a hint! -Philcha (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC).

Well, I am familiar with literary topics (as I am a graduate student in English literature) and it is extremely common for scholarship to emerge on an author decades or even centuries after their death. For example, thirty years after the publication of Jane Austen's novels, there was virtually no scholarship on her works, but now there are thousands of books and every single one of her works, down to the stories she wrote as a child, has been analyzed. The same is true for Mary Wollstonecraft - it wasn't until over 100 years after the publication of her works that scholarship began to be done on them (now, even her hack work, like Thoughts on the Education of Daughters has been studied). Ditto for Mary Shelley. The list is rather long. In fact, almost all of the writers I've written biographies for on Wikipedia were not seriously studied until many decades after their death - most were not seriously studied for 150 years. That we already have serious literary criticism on Burroughs is a sure sign that more is to come. Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be further lit crit of Burroughs' work. However I'm not sure Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology will be regarded as literature, since most of it is non-fiction essays on Scientology, published at various times in various periodicals. As I said earlier, the only Google Scholar hit I got for Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology was Urban's work, which is about Scientology and only mentions Ali's Smile: Naked Scientologyas an aside. You might do better to look for commentarty on the individual essays in the collection. --Philcha (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We have already done that kind of research. On your other points, non-fiction essays are considered literature. For example, there is even scholarship on Mary Wollstonecraft's book reviews for the Analytical Review. The same is true for lots of authors. Literature is not just fiction. Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per criteria 3a and 3b. The article tells of the existence of the book, but does not put it into context of Burrough's oeuvre or give us sufficient critical response to make an informed judgement - the general reader would be left feeling somewhat unsatisfied, as such it not does not address one of the main aspects of the topic. The background section is rather long and detailed, and I don't see the direct relation between the first paragraph of that section and the topic of the article. There is a feel of WP:SYNTHESIS about the section, as material is being discussed to advance a position about the background to the book, and we are not given a reliable source which sums up the overview being created. So it is likely that the article doesn't meet criteria 2c. I feel that overall it's a decent article tackling a difficult topic, and it is the nature of the topic that is causing a problem rather than any failing in the editors. SilkTork *^YES! 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• The first and second paragraphs place the work within Burroughs' oeuvre, specifically listing his other works. They describe his basic style and how he drew his most famous style, the cut-up, from the theories of Dianetics. I'm not sure how much more could be done here without going off topic. Awadewit (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• "we are not given a reliable source which sums up the overview being created" - If you wish for an overview of Burroughs as a writer, see the Dictionary of Literary Biography entry we cite and if you wish for an overview of Burroughs as a person and a writer, see the two biographies we also cite: Morgan and Miles. Awadewit (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question. Awadewit commented above that "Considering the essays in the book prompted Scientology to reply, the book obviously did make an impact". Is she referring to the letter from Sorrell (which appears in the compilation) or to some other response? If the latter, what other responses have there been from Scientology? Thanks, Geometry guy 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that is what I was referring to. I have also wondered why precisely Burroughs was "expelled" by Scientology and labeled as being in a "Condition of Treason" (I thought there might be a connection to his publication of these articles), but I don't know of any reliable sources that substantiate that connection. Awadewit (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  Yes it would be good to know that. Anyway, the problem remains that this only shows that the book review of "Inside Scientology" made an impact. It says nothing about the original "Ali's Smile" short story nor the rest of the compilation. Might the article better be renamed, given that some of the components appear to be more notable than the compilation of them? Geometry guy 22:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  The sources I found generally refer to the compilation, though. Even the Dictionary of Literary Biography entry, which doesn't list all of Burroughs' works, lists this book. Awadewit (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is well-written and comprehensive, and incorporates all available WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources on the subject. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I allowed to register a view as the reviewer do you think?Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be helpful to know your view on the current state of the article's quality and whether it should be kept as a WP:GA. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are allowed, Fainites. Note that step 3 of the GAR process is "It is also courteous to notify the most recent GA reviewer" - to me, that is inviting participation by the reviewer. Awadewit (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your comments would be most welcome, Fainites. Pretty much any editor can contribute to a GAR, as it is not a vote. Geometry guy 19:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep A/ There are no prescriptive lists for sections for a GA. It does not follow that because there were no critical reviews and hence no critical review section, it must fail. B/ Burroughs is highly notable. An article on a book by him shedding light on his long term involvement with and partial disillusionment with scientology can hardly fail to be notable. The reviews of this book at the time were literary and scholarly rather than critical. How can this possibly make it not notable? C/ I do not agree with suggestions that it does not place the book within Burroughs oeuvre. D/ I do not agree that the parts about his time with scientology are off topic. They are essential to an understanding of the book. E/ Articles should not be delisted because the impossible is being asked for. The fact that the impossible is not obtainable does not make GA unobtainable. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The book is very short and can be read in less than an hour online; I suggest editors do so before commenting. I agree with Mattisse that the background section goes on for too long relative to the part that is actually about the book. Parts of the background, like the paragraph about cut-ups (a concept which many readers may not be familiar with), seem extraneous to a discussion of the book, which does not mention cut-ups.
• Coming to the summary of the book proper, in the first essay, Burroughs quotes Scientology's criticism of psychiatry at length. Around a third of this essay is a long quote on psychiatrists and their views lifted from a Scientology magazine. Burroughs then proceeds to supply a critique of this criticism, which he feels has fascist overtones, and criticises Hubbard for holding Scientology teachings "under wraps" for financial gain, rather than making them openly accessible to the world, to be investigated and evaluated by other "astronauts of inner space". Our summary of that essay says nothing about all of that, quoting instead a soundbite from an anti-Scientology source which this article could as well do without.
• Our summary of the second essay, while quoting from a press article reproduced in the book, makes me slightly uneasy. If the phrase "started a controversy going by publishing an attack on the psychiatry profession and related fields such as Scientology" refers to the first essay, as I believe it surely does (Burroughs refers explicitly to the Scientology journal he quoted at length in the March essay), then it should be noted that in the first essay Burroughs did not so much "publish an attack on the psychiatry profession" as quote such an attack, in order to then counter and critique it. Not necessarily because he likes psychiatrists and would like to defend them against the attack – he said in that first essay that he sees good and bad in psychiatrists – but because he queries the moral credentials of the attackers (the Scientologists). The "April 1970" reference would seem to be OR, and wrong – it seems to be based on back-calculating the "three months" from the July publication date of the second essay, but as we know, the first essay was published in March 1970, not in April. In the second essay Burroughs describes Scientologists as essentially bourgeois, supporting big business rather than the revolutionary left. I guess that comes across vaguely in our summary.
• In the third essay, Burroughs describes various personal experiences of being audited, some hilarious, others poignant, some triggering in him vivid recollections of events -- he hesitates to ascribe them to past lives -- which he says provided useful source material for his writing. While we have room for his praise of Mr Kaufmann's decision to publish the exposé, we have not made room for what the essay is actually about. I think this reflects Mattisse's concerns that we seem to be describing the book in the context of the "war against Scientology", rather than describing the book as a book.
• In the fourth essay, Burroughs responds to various points by a Church of Scientology official. While this sort of material is difficult to summarise, I think we could do better than just providing links to our articles on the topics these points were about, without saying anything about what was disputed between Sorrell and Burroughs. At any rate, we devote more lines to Sorrell's cover letter, which is half a page, than to Burroughs response to Sorrell's points, which runs to nearly 6 pages.
• The short story that concludes the book is quite entertaining; our summary of it is a little lacklustre. The sound file with Burroughs' voice is a nice thing to have, but the way it has been cut, neatly ending with "why, I paid for his Scientology courses", strikes me as manipulative and makes the story appear like something which it isn't. The story is not a morality tale about the high prices Scientology charges. As our summary indicates, it is a supernatural and surreal story about Malayan magic that makes people run amok. (Note that it is a Malayan dagger, not a Mayan dagger.)
• Grammar issues: "cut-ups and Scientology allowed both he and his readers to redefine words" should be "cut-ups and Scientology allowed both him and his readers to redefine words"; "Scientology, along with cut-ups, silence, and apomorphine, allow the characters to resist social control" should be "Scientology, along with cut-ups, silence, and apomorphine, allows the characters to resist social control".
• Spelling issues: article uses mixture of UK and US spelling: organisation/organization etc. Jayen466 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears Jayen466 (talk · contribs) would ask the Wikipedian to perform original research violations in order to interpret and analyze the material of the book, in the Wikipedia article about it, while neglecting secondary sources. Also, in Jayen466 (talk · contribs)'s comments, above, he neglected to acknowledge that what he calls "spelling issues" are in fact spelling within quoted text, and what he calls "grammar issues" are actually proper tense uniformity within the subsection. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The present article contains a number of content summaries cited to the book itself, so it is not as though the article had eschewed primary source summaries. As for variant spellings in quoted text, I am not sure how we handle this usually; thanks for pointing it out. The grammar issues I mentioned have nothing to do with tense; one is about case, the other about numerus; both are minor issues. Lastly, if a secondary source is clearly wrong -- e.g. Mayan/Malayan -- I think the article is better if we correct rather than perpetuate the mistake. Jayen466 00:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we very careful to avoid content summaries. We quote two opening sentences, list the topics covered in Burroughs' response to Sorrell, describe Sorrell's letter in a single sentence and quote from it once. That is the extent of the "content summaries" quoted to the book itself. Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Responses to Jayen

• Parts of the background, like the paragraph about cut-ups (a concept which many readers may not be familiar with), seem extraneous to a discussion of the book, which does not mention cut-ups. - Removing this information will create a POV article, as it will eliminate much of what Burroughs thought was positive about Scientology. Moreover, it is unlikely that Burroughs would mention cut-ups in his writing, as it is style. Writers do not usually announce "I am writing in this style." Awadewit (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• The sound file with Burroughs' voice is a nice thing to have, but the way it has been cut, neatly ending with "why, I paid for his Scientology courses", strikes me as manipulative and makes the story appear like something which it isn't. - The file is as short as it is to comply with fair use restrictions. It must be less than 10% of the entire length of the original file. I thought it would be best to start from the beginning of the story than to throw readers into the midst of the story. Awadewit (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Jayen seems to want us to summarize the work ourselves. I am very reluctant to do this. Many of the pieces written by Burroughs are extremely disjointed and therefore very difficult to summarize. Any summary would, in my opinion, reflect the interests of the reader. I therefore thought it best to rely on secondary sources. Awadewit (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Responding to your points, the book consists mostly of essays that were printed in news media. They are not written in cut-up style. Perhaps Mattisse is right and this part of the background had better be used in the Burroughs biography.
• I take your point about the sound file, but perhaps another sentence or two wouldn't go amiss, so we have a mention of the kris and Ali, arguably the main elements of the story.
• The essays are not particularly disjointed, being news media articles published for general consumption. I am not usually in favour of primary source summaries either, but if you look at the refs currently cited, the summaries of the essays are already a Wikipedian's summary of the primary source.
• The summary for the short story contains a clear error (Mayan/Malayan) and is a bit lacklustre. There is a slightly longer discussion of the story in William Burroughs and the secret of fascination, by Oliver C. G. Harris (pp. 29–30), focusing on the smile of the title:

  Is fascination infectious, and are those who study it unable to escape its hex? It is surely no coincidence that there is only one case of the smile in Burroughs' fiction prominent enough to have attracted critical attention, which is the dreamy and deadly smile that reproduces itself like a disease in The Wild Boys (1971). As Jennie Skerl observes, “the image of a smiling boy becomes a popular icon that subverts the social order by recruiting more wild boys” (83). While this entire text is, in fact, structured from first to last by images of the enigmatic smile, the defining instance occurs in a short story, written at the same time as The Wild Boys, entitled “Ali's Smile.” Here, the smile is firmly tied to homosexual desire and compulsory mimesis, so that fascination names a perverse pleasure or pleasurable perversity: Ali loses control of his own body by becoming, for a crowd of mocking women, “a Latah, that is a condition where the victim must imitate every movement”; then he exacts revenge by running Amok, a state of lethal possession; finally, Ali is transformed into the haunting image that ends the story with an enigmatic ellipsis: “Against the icy blackness of space, the ghost face of Ali ... smiles” (Exterminator! 75, 84). Murphy's comment in relation to the murderous wild boys, that “they smile in invitation to the reader” (Wising Up 167), captures nicely the threat they pose within and beyond their Book of the Dead: mimetic smiles, fatally so. 8

• Harris' summary does not mention the Scientological subplot at all. Jayen466 19:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• What would you suggest we include from this? Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here a draft proposal:

"Ali's Smile" by William Burroughs is a short story originally published by Unicorn in 1971 and later republished in Burroughs's collection of short stories, Exterminator! (1973). Ali, the Malayan houseboy of a colonial official, is put under a spell by a group of malicious women, becoming "a Latah, that is a condition where the victim must imitate every movement". Once free from the spell, Ali runs amok with a kris, which his master keeps. Years later, after his return to an English suburb, his master is compelled to run amok with the kris. The story ends in carnage: "hippies, locals, and scientologists fight and an intelligence official who is investigating scientology is killed. A mudslide buries everyone." Ali is transfigured into a disembodied smile: "Against the icy blackness of space, the ghost face of Ali ... smiles." Burroughs' use of the "enigmatic smile" here parallels his use of the same motif in The Wild Boys (1971).

Any good? Also gets rid of the "Mayan". Jayen466 12:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I leave it to the article experts to respond, but I believe that the last sentence should be attributed/qualified because it is analysis by a single source. Geometry guy 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll let Cirt address the summary of the story and I'll address the lit crit (I'm still waiting for this book from my library, btw - I would like to see the passage in context). How about:

In a motif which Burroughs repeats in The Wild Boys, he ties the smile to "homosexual desire and compulsory mimesis", according to Burroughs scholar Oliver C. G. Harris. At the end of the story, for example, Ali is transfigured into a disembodied smile—"Against the icy blackness of space, the ghost face of Ali ... smiles"—which invites the reader [to enjoy him? I'm speculating here - I need to read more of the surrounding text]. However, it is an ambiguous invitation."

Let me know what you think. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that goes a bit too far for my liking, what with the ambiguous invitation and all that. :) It's not in the source. I've posted a bit more of the surrounding context on the talk page for your reference. Jayen466 02:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I see from the context that you provided that this is actually psychoanalytic criticism. I'm going to have to obtain Harris' book myself. Explaining this is going to be even more difficult than I thought. I usually don't include psychoanalytic criticism in articles unless it is a very important part of the scholarly reception of a particular book specifically because it is so difficult to explain. (It is rarely taught in undergraduate literature classrooms for just this reason.) Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any objection to inserting the summary I posted above, excluding the final sentence on the "enigmatic smile?" Jayen466 19:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Would like to hear Awadewit (talk · contribs)'s take on this. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my frankness, but I don't think it does a very good job of summarizing the argument. Note that we don't learn any of the surrounding context of the argument, which totally changes one's perception of it, nor do we learn the main thrust of the the paragraph, the bit about "homosexual desire and compulsory mimesis". (The larger meaning of the connections between "fascination" and "desire" are all made much clearer when one learns that this is psychoanalytic criticism from the surrounding material. I hope to get this book soon. Awadewit (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that is alright. But note that the above was not meant to summarise Harris' argument. It was just supposed to summarise the content of the story. I was going to leave the summarising of the psychoanalytic/literary criticism to you! :) Do you think it would do as a summary of the story's content? It just says a little more about what happens, and it corrects the Mayan mistake. Cheers, Jayen466 10:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I misunderstood. Like the summary we had previously, this leaves out a great deal of this very confusing story. In your opinion, what happens to Ali in the middle of the story? Should we mention the names of the other characters? Ali is not actually the main character, so perhaps we should mention other characters' names - what do you think? One reason I quoted the summary written by a scholar was because he determined the essence of the story was in the events rather than the characters, but now we are making our own determinations on that front. Summarizing this story will be extremely difficult, as it is so disjointed. Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I suppose Ali's ghost with its associated violent impulse and mimetic spell hung around in a latent form in the intervening decades, attached to the kris. I don't mind if you want to mention the other characters, but am equally happy to just combine the two scholarly content descriptions we have, in the way I did above. While Ali does not get the most words on the page, by a long shot, his smile is what the story leads up to and what has given it its name. Ali, who survives his master in disembodied form, is the thread that ties all the time periods covered in the story together. Jayen466 09:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Precis of content is not original research, as any reader can verify what we say from the primary source. That doesn't mean it is easy to provide a balanced precis. However, it being difficult is no excuse for omission. The concern that a precis may be one reader's interpretation is easily countered by the fact that this is a wiki. The wiki process can be used to reach a consensus on a balanced summary. I strongly encourage Awadewit, Cirt and Jayen466 (who are all excellent editors) and others, to work together to achieve such consensus. Geometry guy 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Summaries are OR. I do this little exercise with my introduction to fiction class to demonstrate to them that each person reads a text differently, each person focuses on different details. We all read a particular short story and then summarize it. Students are always shocked when the read the summaries of their fellow classmates because, as they say, "the story wasn't about that!". In a contentious article like this one, I think it is best to let secondary sources describe the work as much as possible. I have no particular interest in attempting to write a summary, when we will simply end up with other editors saying "that isn't the focus of the piece!". There is no real way to resolve any such dispute, because what one editor views as the main idea of a particular piece is often up to interpretation. There is no way to "verify" individual Wikipedians' interpretation of the text and, in my opinion, such descriptions would be OR. Awadewit (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  This is essentially a vacuous observation, Awadewit. Clearly two different students would write different summaries, just as two different editors would write different articles. Indeed this GAR is taking place largely because editors disagree on the focus and emphasis of the article. If it is OR to distill content, then the entire encyclopedia is OR. You, Cirt and others have exercised editorial judgement in how you deploy the secondary source material, which quotes you use etc. Clearly Jayen would have written quite a different article, using the same primary and secondary source material. Editorial judgement on what material to include and what not to include is not verifiable, but that doesn't make it original research per se. In some respects, unqualified secondary source material needs to be chosen with more care than primary source material because of its air of authority.

  I agree with you that interpretation should be left to secondary sources, but summarizing content is not interpretation, unless you wish to paralyse the entire encyclopedia by analysis, because distilling knowledge is exactly what encyclopedia's do. A reader may well come to this article wondering "Do I want/need to read this book?" A good summary of the content may save them the trouble. If they are dissatisfied with the summary then they can read the book. In doing so, they verify the summary, even if they disagree with the editorial choices made. If they feel the article does a really bad job, then they can edit it themselves. Geometry guy 10:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note that already Jayen has implied above that it is possible to summarize "Ali's Smile" without mentioning Scientology. Awadewit (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  The passage he quotes is not a plot summary, but contains a nugget or two of literary criticism, contrary to claims that there isn't any. This is an RSS, so why not use it? I cannot read Jayen's mind, but he seems to be pointing out that there is more to Ali's Smile than its Scientological connection. Covering it as part of this compilation makes it harder to bring this out: short stories and political commentaries are received and discussed in quite different ways. Geometry guy 09:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm well aware of the differences between various forms of literature and their reception. I've already asked Jayen what he would like us to include from this material. I'm awaiting a reply. Since the material is from a discussion of Burroughs' fiction in general, framing its inclusion will be tricky. This is not an analysis of Ali's Smile - this is an analysis of a trope in Burroughs' fiction, that is, a motif of sorts that Burroughs uses throughout his works. As the above excerpt makes clear, the material from Ali's Smile is being used as a representative example from Burroughs' oeuvre. The author of the above passage is not analyzing the story and explaining its main ideas. Awadewit (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  I know you are, but this is not a user talk page, so the article is the issue at hand. I agree (it is clear) that this passage is discussing a motif, but the motif not only appears in the short story, it inspires the title. The article already discusses e.g. cut-ups in connection with his other works and including such comparisons is standard, isn't it? Geometry guy 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I read the online version, and the article fails to cover the book adequately. I believe the conflict which led to this GAR was initiated by a misunderstanding: in the first article of the book, there is an extensive critique of psychiatrists. However, this critique is a quotation of Scientology material, not Burrough's own words, and Mattisse is clearly not the first person to be confused by this. The article promotes this misunderstanding by quoting the introduction to the second article: "an attack on the psychiatry profession and related fields such as Scientology". Burrough is not supportive of psychiatry, but he isn't vehemently against it either. At the moment the article leads all readers into the same misunderstanding. As such it should not be a GA. Geometry guy 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed this particular bit [1], however it should be noted this was itself confusing due to the wording in the source, The East Village Other. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this the only problem you see, GG? That is relatively minor, in my opinion and can easily be fixed. Cirt has begun. If, however, you feel that the article needs a reception section, a section explaining Burroughs' journalistic style, a section explaining why Burroughs chose to publish where he did, etc., we might as well stop now, as none of those questions can be answered. In that sense, this article is like Mounseer Nongtongpaw - it contains a summary of everything written on the published work, but is not a comprehensive exploration of the work of literature. Awadewit (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Cirt has sorted that out. My aim here is not to see problems, but to try to find consensus. Concerning a "reception" section, I have already noted that formulaic article structures are not GA requirements. Indeed, I think it is a mistake to write an article on a book which has received essentially no critical response as a literary article. Since the main reaction has been from Scientology, the topic is primarily a political one. If I were writing the article, I would give it a broader title such as "William Burroughs and Scientology" to make it easier to use the source material: the book itself is only really notable as a compilation of his writings relating to Scientology. However, I am not writing the article; those who are must do as they think best. Geometry guy 10:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea of renaming the article "William Burroughs and Scientology" makes good sense, given that there is very little in terms of literary reception of the book. Jayen466 11:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought thats a whole different article - probably much larger in scope. This is article about a particular book. Why don't you write an article called William Burroughs and Scientology Jayen. I'd be very interested to read it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be? What other writings are there by Burroughs on Scientology? My title is only a suggestion; others are surely possible. The aim would be to find one that covers the primary sources, while maximizing the available secondary source material. Geometry guy 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

But he was a scientologist. Presumably an article on WB and SC. would cover that in depth.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, an article on WB and Scientology would have a much broader scope. There are many details about Burroughs' personal life that would have to be included there as well as an in-depth analysis of Burroughs' novels from the 1960s. Note that we briefly describe in this article how Burroughs used these novels to suggest that techniques of Scientology could be used to resist social control. A true "William Burroughs and Scientology" article would necessitate research into all of these works. It would also necessitate research into Burroughs' understanding of Dianetics and how that influenced his writing. Again, we only very briefly allude to that here. The title of the article is appropriate since we discuss the background that led to the work and the work itself. It is worth reiterating that the Dictionary of Literary Biography mentions this work of Burroughs, although it does not list all of his works. In my opinion, since this book is written by Burroughs, mentioned in Burroughs scholarship, and included in such an illustrious list, it should have its own article. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"William Burroughs on Scientology" would limit the scope a little, while being broader than the current article. I'm just trying to make suggestions that would make the article easier to write. If editors relish the challenge of writing an article on a compilation with no contemporary reviews and essentially no critical reaction, on a controversial topic and mixing a short story with political commentary, good luck! Geometry guy 09:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in writing about "WB and Scientology", which is a completely different topic than this article. I worked on this article because I was interested in writing about literature and in learning about Burroughs as a writer - I have little interest in researching Scientology. I actually enjoyed the challenge of writing this article right up until the point I was accused of shoddy research. Awadewit (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Update: I have removed The Scandal of Scientology by Paulette Cooper as a source from the article [2]. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This is neither Delist nor Keep; it's Modify then Keep. I don't support GA status for this aricle in its current state. As per the "without going into unnecessary detail " wording of WP:WIAGA, the Background section is clearly too long. It should be split off — either to a "Response to Scientology" section of the Burroughs article, or else a separate "William Burroughs and Scientology" article. After that move, I would Support GA, since no further info exists on the book. Crap, we get minuscule and/or trivial (topics deleted in the name of world peace) articles that pass FA; this is nothing new. Not sure this article could be taken to FA without critical review, but GA should be fine. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The background section actually could be larger, the size places Burroughs and his works within the context of his experiences in Scientology and is appropriate for the article. More information could be given at the main article, William Burroughs, or a separate new article "William Burroughs and Scientology", but the book itself certainly is notable and the background information is appropriate here. Cirt (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cirt that the "Background" could be larger - it is not an entire article in and of itself. As I explained above, there are many more topics that would have to be covered in much greater depth in such an article. Could you explain what you would remove? I think that what is there is necessary for the reader to understand the context of Burroughs writing the pieces and publishing them. Awadewit (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Modify then Keep. I believe this is an obvious Ga candidate with very few flaws that should be easily mended. I don't agree that the background section is too long since this is supposedly what explains the reason the book is notable and interesting. However I do agree that it needs a section on reception. It must be possible to track down some responses either reviews or commentaries about the book which would both serve to assert notability more clearly and to provide any critical views for the sake of neutrality. I think that even if the reception section were to just read "since the book was only circulated in 10 copies its impact has been very small, and no scientology sources have made public comments about it" that would be an improvement. I think it i simply important to know what, if any, the impact has been or at least give an evaluation of the writings in terms of burroughs authorship.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The background section is half the length of the section on the book itself, and the latter is obviously pretty short. But I'm not saying the background should be deleted entirely; just trimmed down more than a little, and the trimmings moved elsewhere. And for that matter, I wouldn't even be all that upset if the background section stayed as it is... too big, but not overwhelmingly so... but expanding it would be walking resolutely into WP:COATRACK territory, or at least creating opportunities for such accusations... if the article is gonna be about Burroughs and Scientology, let's call it an article about Burroughs and Scientology.Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need to expanding the bacground section either, it seems quite comprehensive. The "it" in my phrase "it needs a section on reception" was meant as an anaphora referring back to "the article" (which is the unexpressed topic of the previous phrase "I believe this ..."), not to "the bacground section" although I can easily understand why you didn't interpret it that way. What I mean is that after the content section there should be added a new section describing all and any events subsequent to the books publication. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We have added a reception section that states there were no contemporary reviews. Awadewit (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an improvement in my opinion although it would very much be preferable if more material could be added. Do none of the recent scholarly works that you have used mention anything about it, analysis, its relation to burroughs general authorship? Has the work left no legacy at all?·Maunus·ƛ· 04:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the works that I read analyze the book in any detail (that's why this article is so thin) - what they do say, we used in the article itself. We await such a definitive publication with bated breath. See Talk:Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/Archive 1#Potentionally useful notes for an example of the relevant material in the Miles biography. Awadewit (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have updated my opinion to 'keep I think that the article is unlikely to become much better than it is untill new scholarly works about it are published, and I also think it lives up to the GA criteria.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Update: Reception subsection added [3]. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Does the cited biblio cover only literary aspects, or would it also include quasi-political aspects of B's writings? --Philcha (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify your question? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Is there any possibilitythat it might have omitted commentaries that treated the book as somethin other than literature, e.g. quasi-political essays, satire,...? --Philcha (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I can't be sure on that front. Awadewit (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Then there's an area you need to research. --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
            • I've already checked all of the databases, books, etc. that I know for sources - JSTOR, MLA, Google Scholar, reference works on Burroughs, card catalogs, etc. I've also consulted the reference librarians at my university. Please let me know what else I should do. As a graduate student, I am familiar with research techniques and am a thorough researcher. Awadewit (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
              • OK, so your "I can't be sure" was just about the impossibility of proving a negative. Fair enough. --Philcha (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
                • Sorry I didn't make that clearer the first time. Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
                • @Philcha (talk · contribs), yes we have also checked additional databases Newsbank, LexisNexis, Infotrac, etc. etc. etc. etc., and, um, probably a bunch more etc. in there as well. :P Cirt (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion: I think we ought to mention that much of the first essay is about Scientology's criticism of psychiatry, and Burroughs' critique of that criticism. Jayen466 12:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Could you work up a sentence? We can tweak it together. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Am posting a draft to the talk page. Jayen466 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I noticed only one problem: the first paragraph contains information, which is not directly related to the subject of the article. I think the paragraph should be shortened. For instance, quotes like ""Burroughs believed that language is a virus and that words and images are instruments of control that allow evil forces to impose their will over people." can be removed as they are not particularly relevant. Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed this down a bit [4]. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Update: Please see the new information on primary sources and a factual error I discovered at the peer review. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question As I see it, the three remaining issues that are ongoing are the two summary statements that Jayen and I are working on and the publishing date at the peer review. Is that correct? (This page is becoming unwieldly.) Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I thought the other summaries could do with expanding as well, in the manner we're contemplating here for the Ali's Smile story and the first essay. If we put our minds to it, I don't think it should take too long. Shall we share the reamining essays between us, and each of us put up a draft for the others to comment on and improve?
  • Having slightly more substantial summaries may also help to address the perceived shortcoming that the background section has too much weight compared to the description of the book itself. Jayen466 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm really very concerned that we are straying into OR here. I already have several variations of the Ali's Smile summary that look very different. However, let's wait on deciding this, until the larger issue about whether or not this can even be a GA is resolved. Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd say the improvements are worth doing whether this remains a GA or not. I'd like to drop the revised summary of Ali's Smile in, not least so we finally correct the secondary source's error in describing a Malayan kris as a "Mayan" kris. If editors have objections, please state them here. Thanks. JN466 08:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I echo Awadewit (talk · contribs)'s concerns about straying into WP:OR territory. Also, this page is about assessing whether the article remains a GA or not, and its primary purpose is not to become a drawn out discussion page for the article and improving it. Cirt (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Note that the above draft is cited to secondary sources – the one we are presently citing, and to Harris. Do you object to my inserting the above draft, and if so, would you mind saying why? We can continue the conversation on the article talk page. Thanks. JN466 09:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes, I do object to this, due to concerns raised already by Awadewit (talk · contribs), above. And yes, I do think that the bulk of this page and an extreme amount of text on this page has been spent on back and forth and back and forth and back and forth discussions that do not relate directly to the purpose of the GAR itself. Cirt (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
              • Just to clarify, could you say which specific concerns these are so I can address them? Thanks. JN466 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
                • Again, taking up way too much space on this page on unrelated discussion. Cirt (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • [5] JN466 11:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

• Comment. This may be a good moment to ask SilkTork, Yob.Mod, Ling.Nut, Maunus and Philcha (those who've expressed concerns) to update their view on the article below. The article has been improved and appears to be on a positive trajectory, with a good collaboration ongoing to handle NPOV concerns. Arguments for a shift of emphasis in the article have been rejected, and such decisions should be left with the content experts. Also the problems with sourcing further analysis have been elaborated. As an optimist, I hope (without prejudice) that this reassessment will end by retaining the article. Is it heading there, or do the problems editors have raised above remain? Geometry guy 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's still not a GA

I still interpret WP:WIAGA's "broad coverage" criterion to mean that, for books, a summary of independent commentary is required. I agree that "broad coverage" is a subject of recurring debate, but I think examination of GAs promoted from mid-2007 onwards supports my interpretation. In Wikipedia:Ga#Language_and_literature (Works) there are so many that I only had time to sample the "A..."s; and all recent GAs beginning "A..." except this one include indepedent commentary: The 100-Mile Diet; After This; Agrippa (a book of the dead); Al Aaraaf; And the Band Played On; Apex Hides the Hurt; and Artemis Fowl (novel). In Wikipedia:Ga#Philosophy_and_religion the only recent GA on a relatively recent book is Power: A New Social Analysis, and that includes indepedent commentary. Wikipedia:Ga#Social_sciences_and_society contains only a few Web-based "works" which may be in the wrong categories.

I'm sorry, but I have to dispute your assessment. These works do not support your statement. For example, After This has no "Themes" or "Genre"/"Style" sections. Apex Hides the Hurt has no "Genre" and/or "Style" section. Artemis Fowl also has no "Genre" and/or "Style" section. If these articles were truly "broad" in the way you are suggesting, they would need to have these sections, but they do not. Therefore, it is clear that GA does not really require broad coverage in the way that you suggest. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that I can't lose here - if the consensus is that this article is a GA, I have 3 that have some but not complete independent commmentary waiting in the wings :-) Philcha (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation - we cannot ask a coverage that is broader than the existant material allows. However I am sorry that this minor article makes it to GA while really important works in the same alley like Naked lunch and On the Road remain in a sorry state. But that's a different story.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you Maunus (talk · contribs), for reevaluating your Keep stance on the article's quality status and stating I also think it lives up to the GA criteria. Your willingness to take a second look at this is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Question I see some "draft" stuff on the talk page of this GAR. What's the status of all that? Is everybody comfortable that the current version of the article is essentially the one we're going with? Ling.Nut (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, I am not. I think some of the summaries of the book itself are very threadbare; hence the proposals being discussed on the talk page. The book is available online and can be read in about an hour; it's easy to compare our present summaries against the book's actual content. JN466 23:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment2. I think the page has definitely improved since the GAR was brought. I am now satisfied about the sources for a critical reception simply not existing, both from trusting Awadewit's research skills and my own search for German-language sources (i couldn't even find sources on the quality of translation, or why this book was important enough to merit translation). I'm still leaning towards the view that creative works need some kind of critical reception coverage, but this is an unusual case as each of the essays have sources about them, but not critical commentary. So i would be fine if it is kept GA, but don't think it should set a precedent for other articles. The "broadness" criterion still means including critical commentary imo, except in very few specialised cases. Note: this article does have a reception section now, which i do think is useful, in spite of having to be slightly tortured in style to get it in thereYobMod 14:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see much difference. The addition is a section which says that a 1990 book doesn't list any "contemporary reviews" of Ali's Smile. As there are, apparantly, no critic overviews of this work the authority behind the background section must be culled together from different sources writing about other aspects of Burrough's work - not directly this one. Taking comments out of context to advance a view on something is WP:SYNTHESIS. I have problems with this article because of that, and it may well be that given the topic and the lack of published material on the topic that it will never be a viable Good Article. This sometimes happens. For a Good Article on a published work I would expect to have some critical commentary or response. A statement saying there isn't any critical commentary is useful and informative, but doesn't then make the article any broader in coverage. The synthesised Backgound is problematic as collecting together information about other aspects of a person's life and then making conclusions from that about a different aspect is not what we do here on Wikipedia, and is discouraged as it makes us unreliable. We are not the experts writing a critical commentary and putting a book into context - we are the editors who research and find that critical commentary and bring it here in a neutral and balanced manner for readers to discover what has been said about the book. As I said earlier - it is the nature of the topic that is problematic, and editors have worked on this in good faith, however, unless the Background section can be cut back to neutral facts directly related to the book, and a reliable source found to put this book into context of Burrough's work and give a critical overview, then I don't see it as a Good Article. My view is still Delist. SilkTork *^YES! 18:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • But we're not synthesizing anything - we're saying "here is background information about Burroughs' other works and his life story which is relevant" (this is done on lots of featured articles, for example). We're not presenting that information and then applying it to this work - that would be synthesis. I would also like to point out that there is critical commentary on this book - we use it in the article. There is just no contemporary (meaning 1970s) response. To be absolutely clear, there is nothing approaching original research in this article. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you to Yobmod (talk · contribs), for reevaluating and changing from your earlier stance of Neutral to now Keep. Your help in searching for sources and also your kind words about Awadewit's research skills are most appreciated. Thank you for acknowledging that the new Reception subsection in the article is useful and a positive improvement. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how appropriate it is to repeat emboldened Keep and Delist !votes of other users in our own postings. Couldn't someone totting up the !votes mistakenly end up counting the same vote several times – once when it was made, and once when another editor thanked the respective editor for voting Keep or Delist? To guard against that, it would probably be best if we all disembolden repeats of other editors' votes in our own posts. JN466 23:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply pointing out others that have recently changed their positions in favor of Keep. Cirt (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

GAR is not a vote. Geometry guy 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that multiple editors are in favor of keeping the article's GA quality status rating, and that multiple editors have recently switched from a prior position, reevaluated the article and affirmed that it should be kept as a WP:GA. Cirt (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But it is the reasoning they have provided which really matters, not the bold font. Geometry guy 06:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the reasoning, and also the overall change in consensus by these editors that have asserted the article's quality status should be kept as GA. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I have listened carefully to the arguments presented here. I am unconvinced that this article should be delisted. Without a doubt I think that all articles, including this one, can be improved. However, I do not think that this GAR should continue indefinitely. I believe that the article is:

1) "well-written", meaning it is "clear" and "grammatically correct"; it also follows the basics of the MOS;

2) With the exception of the one publication date outlined at the peer review, it is factually accurate and verifiable (note that no one has opposed on the grounds that we still haven't resolved this factual inaccuracy - I am still working on resolving that issue and hope to have it done soon); it has inline citations from reliable sources and contains no original research

3) It is as broad as it can be. Note that the footnote to that criterion says "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." - Even the comprehensiveness criterion for FA does not require articles to cover what is not covered in published material.

4) The article is NPOV

5) The article is stable -These are all of the edits made since the GA review in April.

6) The media are appropriately licensed.

I see no reason to delist this article at this time. Awadewit (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for summarizing your analysis of the article, Awadewit; that is much appreciated. I'm sorry that this GAR is taking longer than the nominal 2 weeks, but many reassessments do, and this one is particularly unusual. Let me reassure you that it won't continue indefinitely. I wouldn't like to see it continue for more than another week and I would not like to close it as delist since there isn't consensus for that and it would not be the best outcome for the encyclopedia. However, I am also reluctant to close as keep while I am unsure that the summaries are broad; it is possible that other reviewers (e.g. Yobmod) can articulate a consensus to keep sooner than I can. In the worst case, we can close this as "no consensus", but I think that would be a great pity. Geometry guy 19:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Delist the article if it remains as it is or Improve with a view to keep.

• The background section is overlong compared to the section describing the book itself. It also appears to be synthesised from sources that do not present this material in direct connection with the topic of the article. For example, the comments about the "insectlike" presence of Burroughs' writing appear to have little relevance to this book, which consists mostly of essays that appeared in the popular press. These essays do not feature Burroughs' customary literary style. These comments on Burroughs' writing style would be better housed in the Burroughs biography. I would be in favour of losing the entire first paragraph of the background section from this article. Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) has presented a re-write on the talk page which alleviates my concerns in this regard. --JN466 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• The quote in the quote box ("Scientology was useful to me until it became a religion and I have no use for religion. It's just another one of those control-addict trips and we can all do without those.") does not appear to be from the book this article is about. This is a pity, since the reader will quite possibly assume that it is. Related quotes would have been available from the book itself.
• Having read the book, I find the summaries of the book's content lacking. I appreciate that editors were trying to refrain as much as possible from summarising the primary source directly, however the result does not adequately represent the book.
• One more thing: checking the refs I noticed the citation to Murphy for Burroughs' "condition of treason" may give the wrong page number. In the hardcover version, at any rate, it is pp. 115–116 rather than pp. 117–118. It's of course possible the paperback has a couple of pages less. JN466 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please present the precise material that you feel is a synthesis. This is a heavy charge. As a scholar on Wikipedia, I take care to avoiding presenting OR on Wikipedia because I view the NOR and SYN rules as some of the best rules on Wikipedia. However, that does not mean we cannot present relevant background material. For readers coming to this article who have never heard of Burroughs, for example, explaining who he is and what kind of a writer he was is relevant in my opinion. In my opinion, this article would fail GA if did not have that first paragraph. Burroughs' major themes, also addressed in that first paragraph, are indeed relevant to this article. For example: In the Dictionary of Literary Biography, Matt Theado, a scholar of the Beats, writes that "to the end of his life Burroughs cleaved to the image of a tormented but supremely curious person who explored the dark side of the human consciousness.", etc. Awadewit (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• We can change the quote in the quote box - that is not a serious concern. Awadewit (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• As you can see from the discussion on the project talk page, summarizing this book is not an easy task and coming to an agreement really does run the risk or OR. However, the article does summarize each section of the book. We also need to remember this is GA, not FA. Awadewit (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• I don't remember if I used the paperback or the hardback. Try using the ISBN to figure it out. I am generally careful about page numbers, but I could have made a mistake. Awadewit (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Quote in quote box replaced, per above: [6]. Cirt (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest a swap (without prejudice and this has nothing to do with the good article criteria)? The "Newtonian physics" quote is really lovely and I can understand the desire to quote it, because it would grab any reader's attention. It is currently used instead as part of the summary of the first article in the book. On the talk page I've suggested that a summary could instead quote the first four sentences of the article. If this were done, the Newtonian physics material would be perfect for a quote box. Geometry guy 21:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand, the first sentences of the book are already included in that part of the summary. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but if the Newtonian physics material were in the block-quote, the summary could concentrate on the first four sentences, saving space for summary of the rest of the article. Please see the talk page. Geometry guy 22:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. [7] - as per suggestion by Geometry guy (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it, but consensus of two is not consensus, so further responses are needed. For instance, Jayen may consider that this quote places undue emphasis on the negative side of Scientology, while Awadewit may consider that quote to be a key part of the summary. I simply think it is a striking quote that any reader would notice, and hence is worth highlighting in one way or another. Also the placement of the quotebox needs to be considered carefully according to the content of the quote. Geometry guy 22:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, okay, I was just responding to your suggestion, and noting here that I have done so. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am myself a little concerned about misrepresenting this quote's context, as this is one half of an "on the other hand" construction. So, I did some thinking. However, only one sentence is given to Scientology's benefits in this paragraph and the bulk of this essay is given to explaining the problems of Scientology, so I do not think we are misrepresenting Burroughs' point of view on the matter. We are not quote mining, for example. I am comfortable with using this quote in the box. We should also, of course, say in the box that it is from "Burroughs on Scientology". I would also suggest switching the box with the picture, so that the box is in section of the the article that describes the book itself. Awadewit (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that quote works well. It is quite a thoughtful comment and, it seems to me, represents Burroughs' position well. JN466 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Great - and Awadewit's idea to switch the quote and photo makes sense to me. This also fits well with Awadewit's rewrite of the "Burroughs on Scientology" summary on the talk page. Thanks, Cirt, for making the change: I only commented to make clear that I do not belong to the "do as I say" school of reviewing :-) Geometry guy 19:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture and box swapped, source essay indicated in quote box [8] JN466 21:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) This is a very minor issue (not related to GA criteria), but I think the quote works better at the beginning of the section rather than right next to the "Burroughs on Scientology" subsection, because the former detaches it as an interesting quote, while the latter attaches it as a prominant theme in the essay. What do others think? Geometry guy 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree; I like the picture better moved down, but the quote I felt was better at the beginning of the section. JN466 22:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the quote next to the material it is most relevant to. I also agree with Geometry guy (talk · contribs) that this is something trivial that should not hold up the article's GA status or really be discussed at this GAR page, which seems to be a catch-all page for anything and everything related to the article itself that is not necessarily related to a discussion of its GA status. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Note about the title The original title, Ali's Smile/Naked Scientology, was much more clear. I believe the colon may appear in some sources because of the familiarity of the convention whereby title is separated from subtitle in this wise. In this case, "Naked Scientology" isn't a subtitle, so it would be very good to avoid the implication that it is. Suggest moving back to original title, which is following Theado etc. 86.44.44.214 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Most recent publications have used the colon. Again, not really a major issue to hold up this GAR. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what holds up GARs or who decides that, just following the "Please add comments" invitation. But the article is rather predicated on the assumption that it is a subtitle, is it not? A change of nomenclature would correct that. Good to look at it, at any rate,while there are editors around and stuff is being sorted out. "Most recent publications" isn't a useful rubric, better would be "most sources used", but if that was not a huge majority, the other title would still be preferable as it is clearer, surely. Not sure about recent publications in any case - Theado in his The Beats (2003) follows his usage in "William Seward Burroughs" cited in the article, Miles in Beat Collection (2005) follows his El Hombre Invisible (cited in the article) in listing as "Naked Scientology (with Ali's Smile)", Hibbard in 2000 (Conversations with William S. Burroughs) has Ali's Smile as "Reprinted with Naked Scientology". Perhaps for other editors you could break down the usage in the sources used, since I claim one title format is preferable all other things being near equal? Thanks for your note. 86.44.19.115 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, a topic of conversation not necessary to be had on this GAR page. Could be something to discuss at the article's talk page, however. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GAR closure

This reassessment appears to be running out steam and is well past the end-point of the period normally allotted for these things, so I'm intending to close the GAR over the next day or so. My current reading of the discussion is no consensus, default to keep (however, see my response to Ling.nut below). I'm aware that in many ways this is the least satisfactory of outcomes, as it neither endorses the article's GA status or answers the remaining concerns of those who believe the article should be delisted, but—disregarding some minor issues that seem to have been satisfactorily addressed—as the debate largely revolves around interpretations of criterion 3 (Broadness), it seems unlikely that at this late stage a clear consensus will emerge. I have evaluated two on-going strands of debate in reaching this conclusion:

• Some very experienced and well-respected reviewers have made the compelling argument that a Good Article about a literary work should include, at a minimum, a section that describes the work's critical reception. An equally compelling counter-argument has been made that this section can't be included where the sources don't exist to write it, and that the caveat to criterion 3 substantially modifies the criterion by explicitly allowing for "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail". During the course of this rigorous GAR and given the expertise of both article authors and reviewers, it's highly likely that if such sources existed they would have been uncovered. The debate then moves towards a general one about what content should be compulsory for GA status, and whether articles that lack such content can ever become Good Articles. GAR is not really the appropriate venue for answering these questions.

• The adequacy of the article's summary of the book has been questioned, and there has been some discussion of what is or isn't OR, and to what degree criterion 3 applies to this area. As with the previous strand this is to some extent subjective, but again is a genuine criteria-based concern and while it remains is enough to prevent closure as an outright 'keep'. It is unclear at this stage if further editing will take place to address this.

A good-faith effort has clearly been made to address the reasons for the GAR, and the article has improved as a result. I congratulate all those involved on their hard work, and emphasise that this closure verdict is pending and based on current status, and subject to change if there are any major developments in the next day or so. EyeSerene^talk 11:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I put more than a couple hours in on the rewrite of the background section. It's there if y'all want it. Good luck with the article etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I should have mentioned this explicitly. I noticed Jayen has struck one comment as a result of your work, although the rewrite doesn't appear to have been incorporated into the article itself as yet. I'm assuming this will happen, so didn't take account of it when coming to a tentative conclusion. If it doesn't and Jayen reinstates their objection, we'll have three outstanding issues which I think would be enough to push this over the line to delist. EyeSerene^talk 13:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A second issue is the lack of critical response... which we can do nothing about. What's the third unresolved issue? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I mention two in my summary above: (1) the lack of critical response (which I've largely discounted because, as you say, we can't do much about it, although it raises wider issues that aren't appropriate for this forum); and (2) the concern over adequate summary of the book, which for the same reasons as the first is somewhat subjective given the "broad not comprehensive" criterion 3 (but is there nonetheless). The Background section rewrite is the third and perhaps more substantive issue, which even though Jayen has struck their comment, remains to be fully addressed in the article. I hope this clarifies my thoughts. EyeSerene^talk 14:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) WIAGA criterion 3 is actually exceedingly weak. The footnote says that even some unspecified number or proportion of major aspects can be omitted. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't quite say that; what it says is that it isn't necessary to cover "every major fact or detail". I don't interpret that as carte blanche to miss out an entire area, like critical reception, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

...which is proff again that we see things not as they are, but as we are. :-) WIAGA says "...it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." It doesn't really provide a roadmap for what can or cannot be left out. And "Thank God Hallelujah Amen!", I say. GA is creeping too close to FA even now. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice of impending closure

From the recent editing that's taken place and the comments on the talk-page, I hope I'm justified in regarding Jayen's objection regarding the background section as fully addressed? This leaves outstanding concerns from Philcha (critical reception) and Jayen (book summary), so unless Philcha or Jayen have anything further to add I believe this GAR can be closed shortly as 'no consensus'. To allow for time-zone differences, I think it would be fair to give 24 hours for further responses and then wrap this up. EyeSerene^talk 10:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ling.Nut and Awadewit's new version of the background section has resolved my concerns with it. We also now have a more complete summary of "Ali's Smile." I would still like to see the summaries of the first three essays expanded a little further. But even based on the article's present status I am now happy to support Keep. JN466 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  I know you are, but what am I? +Keep Ling.Nut (talk)

• Weak keep, without prejudice. (As Eyeserene has expertly and kindly offered to draw this discussion to a close, I will take the opportunity to venture a !vote :) Articles on creative works typically include critical reception and response; it is common and standard to gather that material in a specific section, but this is not a GA requirement. If there is very little (or no) reception or response, it may be better to place what response there is elsewhere within the article, rather than have a separate section. In my view the current negative reception section is unnecessary, but it is also harmless. However, I say this "without prejudice", because in cases where there are departures from common and standard norms, I think it is appropriate and desirable to seek the scrutiny (and hopefully approval) of multiple reviewers. I share Jayen's view that the summaries of the essays need expansion, but given the improvements to most of the article, I don't consider these issues cause to delist at present. Geometry guy 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some topics are excellent material for Good Articles - such as articles on Formula One races which are clearly defined in terms of time and place, and already have a workable article structure. While others are larger and more blobby with no clear boundaries. And some are tricky because of the GA criteria. What we have here is a topic that does cause concern for GA reviewers because of the GA criteria: the topic that has few sources, especialy in key areas. The nature of the GA criteria does mean that such topics will have difficulty in achieving GA status because the question of "Broad coverage" is brought up. This issue of broad coverage in relation to lack of resources has been raised before and will be raised again. Nominators and editors feel that if they have done a google search and nothing has turned up then the article is as broad as resources will allow. A number of experienced GA reviewers feel that Broad coverage means that if not all of the main aspects of the topic are addressed then a reader would be left unsatisfied because the article is incomplete. That there is little information "out there" doesn't alter the outcome. If there is not enough information to write a complete article, then we have an incomplete article, and it would be inappropriate to grant GA status to an incomplete article that is not going to satisfy the average reader. My judgement is that Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology is an incomplete article, and that the editors have worked hard to make it a complete article by filling in the blanks from elsewhere. I find that inappropriate. It appears to me that this is a minor topic, which is being worked up by the editors into something a bit larger, and I question the value of what is being said, and who is saying it. Indeed, the evidence for notability is so weak that if this book were not by a very notable writer then it might not pass an AfD. It passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) only on Point 5. Given that there is very little resourced material directly addressing the book, the editors have culled together material which discusses other aspects of the author and used that to fill out the article. Can we see what there is said about the book itself by reliable sources? I see no direct comments on the book in the background section. I see some sources supporting publication dates in the Publication and contents section, and then this "In 1970 Burroughs had published a "considered statement" on Scientology's methods because he felt that they were significant enough to warrant commentary.[1] This statement articulates what he calls the group's "precise and efficient" therapeutic methods, however he also criticizes the authoritarian nature of the institution, describing Hubbard's statements as fascistic[1] and comparing their internal surveillance methods to that of the FBI and CIA.[22] He also condemns the "unquestioning acceptance" demanded of Scientologists as well as the institution's secrecy.[1] These pieces were later gathered together into Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology, which religious studies scholar Hugh Urban describes as a "nonscholarly popular exposé of Scientology".[23]" which is good stuff. The rest of that section is the editors' summaries of the stories, and statements such as "He is critical of the Church of Scientology's organizational policy and organizations in general, and Scientology's attempts to keep many of its counseling methods secret" are the editors' rather than from a reliable source. The final section gives us an interpretation from a source that there were no contemporary reviews. We have no reliable source to support the interpretation. We are advised not to interpret primary sources without a secondary source - "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". I feel there is so little actual material here that I could not support a keep. However I would not object to close of no consensus - though I would prefer a delist. SilkTork *^YES! 11:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Like SilkTork, I would delist, for the same reason: "If there is not enough information to write a complete article, ... it would be inappropriate to grant GA status to an incomplete article." As far as I can see, Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology fails to establish the collection's notability, nor even that of any of the works it contains. Note that notability is not inherited, and thefore it is quite possible for some of Burroughs' works to be non-notable. Since Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline, not a policy, it is subject to WP:IAR and that might well save it at WP:AfD. Although the coverage criterion for GA is subject to interpretation, I do not see how WP can retain as a GA an article that fails to establish notability. As Awadewit pointed out earlier (16:49, 6 May 2009), Burroughs scholars may publish more and the article can be improved once that has happened. --Philcha (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but considering that Ali's Smile is mentioned and commented on in several books of Burroughs scholarship and is listed as part of Burroughs' oeuvre a selected list of works in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, I think that this would past notability in spades. Awadewit (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I said that the article fails to demonstrate notability. If it was specifically commented on in several books of Burroughs scholarship, why does the article not summarise these comments, instead of / as well as explaining B's style in general and the basis of his views on Scientology in general? --Philcha (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The lights are off and the janitor's locked up ;) Perhaps the article talk-page or even WT:WIAGA would be a useful place for further discussion? If you disagree with my closure decision, please also feel free to visit my talk page with flaming torches and farming implements (I'll even get Igor to warm up the moat). Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, EyeSerene (talk · contribs), for the closure of this GAR. Cirt (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)