Talk:Blown for Good/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Great work on this article. It is thorough. Writing is at GA standards. Media is good. It is almost as neutral as it can be for the topic and with the available sources. Thoughts before it can be passed (most are minor):

• Lead

• The reception paragraph in the lead is very quote heavy. This forces the use of several inline citations. Would it be possible to paraphrase the reception? Overall the lead is of a fine length but that paragraph being a little shorter would not negatively impact the article. WP:LEADCITE should be considered.

• Author

• This section is a little too close to the source (#5 repeated throughout) for comfort. It isn't really plagerism but throwing in some info form other sources would prevent the flow being so similar.
• "In 2005, he escaped from the international headquarters with the help of police." This could read that he coordinated the escape with the police. Is that the case?

• Contents

• 500 acre needs a conversion. Looks like square kilometers are mentioned at Template:Convert
• "Headley describes an incident where he says he was physically attacked by Miscavige after sarcastically informing him that a production task would be easy due to the millions of dollars the organization planned to spend on a new building." This reads a little funny without clicking on the source. Consider shortening it to something like "Headley describes an incident where he says he was physically attacked by Miscavige for making a sarcastic comment." Alternatively, another line could be added to explain it.
• "Cruise had recently finished the film Days of Thunder and had also completed films including Top Gun and Born on the Fourth of July." We know who cruise is with the Wikilink. The only movie I see being needed in the line is the most recent to put the time period in context.
• "The author describes a 2004 event where Tom Cruise was awarded a "Medal of Valor" from Miscavige" Scare quotes. Try "The author describes a 2004 event where Tom Cruise was awarded the organization's Medal of Valor from Miscavige.
• "Headley gained approval to sell old Scientology materials on eBay in order to recoup money for the organization – he was later accused of embezzlement for doing this." The source verifies this. However, does he say it was approved or was it approved? Anything without a source is OR but you might want to look into this.
• Do you need to repeat inline citation 1 over two lines in the final paragraph of the section like that? Double check this throughout the article.

• Response by organization

• No need to rewikilink "The John and Ken Show on KFI"
• "He said that Child Protective Services received an anonymous tip that his children were in danger and therefore had to come and do an inspection at his house." Consider adding that he blamed the church for this or else it reads like it is a fact that it was them.

• Reception

• No need to repeat the wikilink for KFI and the radio program.
• Are there any negative or mediocre reviews?

• References

• 6 "Runnin' Scared (Village Voice)" That format seems off. Should Runnin' Scared be italicized and should Village Voice not be?
• 8 Should the Washington Post be italicized (Publisher that did not print it might be OK not)
• 10 should INC be decapped?
• Should "The Daily Telegraph staff" and "Star magazine staff" have italics around the works? This is another one I am not sure about since it is the author field.
• 15 "Tom Cruise and Scientology: there's more - A new book claims the Top Gun star had a tendency to chat to ashtrays, bottles and other inanimate objects" Consider removing "- A new book claims the Top Gun star had a tendency to chat to ashtrays, bottles and other inanimate objects" since the secondary header is not always used in citations.
• You used spelled out dates for publishing dates and ISO for retrieved dates. I actually like this and have seen it before. Some editors might not approve if you decide to go FA. (just a note)

• Further reading

• The blog does not seem necessary or appropriate. I believe it should be removed. The same could be said for Perez Hilton as a reference but that appears to be used appropriately enough.

• Other

• No disambigs
• Media is good
• Dead links

• 17 (Yahoo) died a couple weeks ago. Is there a replacement?
• 29 is dead. Is the National Enquirer RS anyways?

Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Response

Thanks very much for doing the GA Review. I will address the above comments and make appropriate changes to the article in response. -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lead

1. I trimmed the lede down a bit in response to this suggestion, and removed the cites per WP:LEADCITE.

• Author

1. As per suggestion from GA Review, I have added another source to this subsection, and done some additional copyediting.
2. I copyedited this sentence to make this a bit more clear.

• Contents

1. I used the template {{convert}}, as suggested
2. I modified this to copyedit it, as suggested.
3. I trimmed this bit of text out, as recommended by the GA Reviewer.
4. I changed this to the suggested wording.
5. I attributed this, as the author's statement.
6. In an article on a controversial topic (like Scientology), it is usually best practice to have citations after each sentence.

• Response by organization

1. Removed wikilinks, as requested.
2. Can't really add that part, he merely stated what occurred, as having come from an anonymous caller.

• Reception

1. Removed wikilinks, as requested.
2. Have not yet come across negative reviews of the book in independent reliable secondary sources. If you come across some, please suggest them, I would love to include material from additional sources. :)

• References

1. Fixed this reference, adding more info regarding the parent company.
2. Italicized The Washington Post.
3. Decapped the "Inc" in "INC".
4. Italicized the names of the works.
5. Removed the secondary header, as suggested.
6. Changed formatting to spelled-out-dates for accessdate fields.

• Further reading

1. Removed that from the subsection.

• Other

1. Okay thanks.
2. Thank you.
3. Removed the link, not needed to satisfy WP:V.
4. Removed that source.

Thanks again for the review, -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. The only concern I have now is that there are unsourced quotes in the lead. I'm not sure if you'll want to paraphrase those couple left or add inline citations (you are running into two somewhat contradicting Wikipeida practices). Regardless, that isn't enough to hold up promotion as far as I see it. This is now GA.Cptnono (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)