Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ruth Norman/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Ruth Norman edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to take this to FAC soon. I think it's in decent shape, but I'd like to get some more feedback before taking it there. Is there anything that reads awkwards/doesn't make sense (well, I guess very little of it makes sense, but you know what I mean)/is likely to concern FAC reviewers. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro
Looks good overall, even if the content is ... different. Nothing looks like a huge issue, but several minor points which shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Lead

  • "She developed an interest in psychic phenomena and past-life regression in the 1940s; these pursuits led to her 1954 introduction to Ernest Norman, who stated that he channeled historical figures, received communications from extraterrestrials, and told of people's past lives.": This may be a slightly long sentence; I'd be inclined to break it up, maybe through the next point.
  • these pursuits led to her 1954 introduction to Ernest Norman, who stated…": Maybe "through these pursuits, she was introduced to Ernest Norman in 1954. He stated that…"
  • "…and increase her channeling": To be pedantic, this is the first time it mentions that she was "channeling".
  • "Norman attributed her prophecy's failure to the effects of her past-life trauma": Not too sure what this means.
  • "Her writings were regarded as scripture by her disciples, and they showed her deep reverence, ostracizing those who questioned her leadership": Is "they" the scriptures or the disciples? If the latter, maybe use "who" rather than "and".
  • I think the latter half of the second paragraph of the lead is a little choppy, and reads as a series of facts that do not necessarily flow together. Maybe a little smoothing would help?

Early life and marriages:

  • The referencing is a little odd here, with repetitions of the same references throughout the first paragraph. Personally, I prefer to keep such references to a minimum, and would not have consecutive sentences with the same references; I am of the "not every sentence needs a cite" opinion. But I know that this is occasionally an issue for others, who like lots of citations, so I would not insist on altering this.
    • Yeah, it was odd, I've changed it a bit, I can always revert if someone complains. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any idea why she became interested in the spiritual stuff?
    • On one website it said that she was trying to contact a dead husband, but I haven't seen an detailed explanation in any of the reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know more about her marriage to Marian?

Fourth marriage

  • "Unarius' tradition holds that…": This is the first time that Unarius is mentioned in the main body, so a little more explanation may be helpful. Also, not everyone may be familiar with the meaning of "tradition" in this sense.
  • "Their account is doubted by Diana Tumminia of California State University, Sacramento, who notes in her 2005 study of the group that Ruth was likely still…" Is a little uncomfortable. Maybe "However, Diana Tummina of California State University, Sacramento, notes in her 2005 study of the group that Ruth was likely still…"
  • Probably outside the scope of this article, but surely there should be some records which indicate when they were really married?
    • I would have thought so, but it doesn't look like any have been unearthed. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Together, they believed that humans could spiritually travel to other planets…" Maybe cut "together" as redundant.
  • "this contact was said to hold the potential to educate and heal humanity": Said by who?
  • "Ernest and Ruth formed an organization": called? The main body never actually gives the group a name, although it mentions the name without definition.
    • One would think the sources would be clear about this, but they're frustratingly vague. I think it was just called "Unarius" until the mid-70s. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they gained several followers": How many are we talking. The fact that only a few people are mentioned after this implies that the numbers were small, but some more precision would be good.
  • "Ernest and Ruth taught about their purported spiritual visits to other planets, relating elaborate details about these journeys.": Maybe "Ernest and Ruth related elaborate details about their purported spiritual visits to other planets".
  • Is it worth adding a little detail of one of their mythical stories of past lives?
  • The chronology of this section is slightly confusing. A lot of things seem to have happened in 1954 which are spread throughout the paragraphs, but the rest is a little vague on dates (I suspect a limitation of the sources) If possible, some firmer dates would be helpful. It may also be worth moving the formation of the group in 1954 before the publication of the books in 1956. Also, the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs seem slightly jumbled, and there is a little repetition of the "journeys". Maybe make the 2nd paragraph factual, about the formation of the group, and some of the followers, and the 3rd paragraph about their beliefs/teachings?
  • Was there any contemporary reaction/criticism of their beliefs? And were there other similar movements at the time, or were they completely off the wall? Perhaps a little context would be helpful, if possible.
    • Added a little, I'm hesitant to do too much, since that seems more relevant to the group than its founder. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ernest and leadership

  • The title could maybe be altered a little, as it could read as meaning the death of leadership as well!
  • "She had also stated that Ioshanna was her spiritual name.": Why "had also stated" rather than "also stated"?
  • "He helped convince her that she was a being from the "fourth dimension"": How did he "help"? Were others involved, or did she already believe this? Presumably this belief came after her husband's death.
  • Maybe a word on who Tesla was. And why him, of all people??
  • "reenacted": I always assumed "re-enacted", but I may be mistaken.
  • A few times, the followers are referred to as "trainees". Was the organisation one where there were followers, like other religions, or where the members were being taught/prepared for … whatever. I'm not sure this comes across clearly.

Prophecy and therapy

  • A bit of a general point, but where and how were all these writings published?
  • "In November 1974, assisted by some of her students, Norman purchased a 67-acre (0.27 km2) property near Jamul, California, to serve as a landing site for extraterrestrials, whom Norman referred to as the "Space Brothers".": Why does this need four references?
  • "Norman revised the date at which she expected extraterrestrials to land…": When? Before or after her first given date?
    • The source doesn't give an exact date, but it was at some point between April and December 1974, rephrased a little for clarity. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How widely publicised was all this? It says she went to the Enquirer, but was it publicised any other times? Did the press pick it up? Again, was there any reaction?
  • "and explained to her followers that she was reliving the trauma of a past life—in which she was Isis—when she was assassinated shortly before extraterrestrials were to land." As an explanation, this does not quite make sense in that it does not say why this would make her get the dates wrong. But that may be due to the sources. Or the original explanation.
  • "Several students doubted Norman's explanation; some of them left the group." Again, numbers are a little vague here. And the note about 40 followers may be better in the main text.
  • "Around that time, she announced…" Announced where and how?
    • Rephrased a bit, but the source is pretty vague. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to Kirkpatrick and Tumminia": I think we need to know who they are.
  • "Brad Steiger": Again, I think say who he is.
  • "coverage that she preferred over academic writings about her group": Not too clear what this means.

1980s and 1990s:

  • "Kirkpatrick and Tumminia state that the Unarian canon appears to be impenetrable but is possible to appreciate after sufficient study.": Again, not too sure what this means.
  • "In 1992, some members argued in favor of a focus on Ernest Norman's teachings and a shift towards science.[61] Criticism of Norman was not tolerated by the group": These are two slightly bald statements, which kind of contradict each other. A little expansion may help.

Legacy

  • "…and was replaced by a board of directors who led the group and channeled": Too many ands? Possibly "and a board of directors assumed leadership of the group, taking over channeling at the same time."
  • This section is a little too much fact, fact, fact. Maybe it could flow a little better.

General

  • I noticed that there is a liberal use of semi colons in the article. I love them myself, but maybe a few of them could come out so that there aren't too many? Not a big issue either way.
  • The one thing that I am not sure about having read the article is how widely known and reported her and her group were. Aside from her writings, and Steiger's writing, what kind of publicity did they get? Were they a small, little-known group or a widely known one? And again, what sort of reaction did they get from the media and non-members? As the article is necessarily giving the group's view of things, it would be nice to hear someone write "but this is preposterous!!!"
  • Was there any academic explanation/analysis of Norman, or the group? Some of this is suggested in the article, but maybe a little more would be good?
  • Throughout, numbers are a little vague: "a few", "some". This may be unavoidable, but a little more precision, if possible, would also help.
  • Did she become rich as a result of all this?
  • It may be worth looking at paragraph openings: many paragraphs seem to open in similar or identical style, and a little variety would help.
  • "Students" comes up quite frequently, and maybe some more word variety is needed. Similar, but less so, for "followers".
  • I noticed that an issue in the GA review was over-reliance on Tumminia. This may be an issue, but not an overwhelming one. But I agree that it may be necessary to give a little broader context here, for example similar groups or the background to such movements. The only way it may become an issue is if other reviewers feel that we are getting too much of the Unarius POV here. On the other hand, the bibliography looks very good, and has a good range of sources. Maybe use some of these a little more to offset the use of Tumminia?
  • For the lead image, which is fair use, would it be preferable to have one solely of Ruth Norman? But not a big deal.
  • I don't watch peer reviews, but ping me if there are any questions or issues here. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ruth_Norman/archive1&oldid=509709005"