Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:50, 7 May 2008.

[edit] Getting It: The psychology of est

Self-nomination. Stable WP:GA-rated article which has had a peer review, archived here (nothing much was brought up there, though it was listed at the psychology and books WikiProjects). I will do my best to address points/comments as they come up in this FAC discussion. Cirt (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Restart: old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've looked through this article, and I'm impressed by the massive turn-around shown by Cirt. I can't find a single error; excellent work. :-) Qst (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I've thoroughly read this article and reviewed its content in detail with Cirt, and I'm confident it meets the FA standard. Great work! VanTucky 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I am going to repeat my previous comment and I will expand a bit: "I think it is a lowering of standards here to feature a book report, especially one so blandly written. We can do better." While Cirt seems to think I have it in for him and my comment on the prior nom was akin to "wikistalking and insulting me" (see this thread) that is not actually the fact and Cirt might want to note that I have not opposed his previous FAC nominations. Frankly, when it comes to featured status I do not think a bland and formulaic book report (same unimaginative template as previous work) cuts it. I have no problem with this being a Good Article and well done to Cirt on that. I do object to it being considered on a level approaching featured content. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To satisfy my curiosity, if nothing else, can you explain which FA criteria apply your comment? I suppose "blandly written" could be a 1a objection, but you haven't supplied any actionable examples. Your opposition almost reads "I don't like the topic" which is not a valid objection. --Laser brain (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi. Do I have to know all the criteria by number to voice my opinion here? I think I described my objection well enough. But if you would like an example, the second paragraph is a good one for the sort of stilted prose I find not up to featured quality. I also mention the entirely dull and formulaic format of the article. Sorry, but I don't think that a "lack of errors" is sufficient criteria for featured status, that would be a GA requirement, IMO. Anyway, that is my $0.02. I would not be commenting on this at all except that the restart nullified my previous comment and I wanted it on record. That and Cirt's attempt at censoring me which I found highly objectionable. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, you don't have to know all the criteria by number. You do, however, have to provide "a specific rationale that can be addressed" per the instructions on this page. I'm not sure how someone who might be inclined to address your concerns can address "dull and formulaic". --Laser brain (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • < Off-FAC dispute moved to talk> Please keep comments here on-topic, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm neither supporting or opposing. I commented earlier when this article was previously up at FAC, and did a fair amount of copy-editing and working with Cirt to improve the article. Cirt has responded to these suggestions (and those of other people), and I think that the last FAC was very productive for the article.
• The following comments from last time still, I think, apply to some extent:
  • I'd like to see more about the context of est and the debate about the methodology, about whether this is a cult, etc. This is obviously very important to understand this particular book's contribution.
  • Specifically, in the "Reception" section, est is described as part of the "New Age" movement. There should have been some discussion of that earlier.
  • There should be more on the impact (or otherwise) of the book.
• I have a broader point: I'm sympathetic to Justallofthem's frustration that this is "a book report." But my feeling is that with a book like this, that may be the best you can do unless you go beyond the book itself.
• I quite believe that Cirt has scoured the relevant literature for any direct reference to the book. If he's missed something, it's not much. What's required, however, is to place this book within a broader frame: here the entire debate over est, New Age-derived (self-)help movements, concern or panic about cults in the 1970s, and the like.
• In general, for topics like this (because I have similar concerns about certain film articles that I"ve reviewed recently, too, for instance), I'm coming to think that the article has to go the extra mile to place the subject in some kind of historical, political, sociological (or whatever) context. This is, after all, what a properly academic take on a book such as this would look like.
• I recognize, however, that this is arguably an idiosyncratic interpretation of criterion 1b, and that perhaps I should be taking my concerns there, rather than here. At worst, perhaps, what's at issue is notability, which I know should not be a consideration in these debates. But my feeling is that something can be done about the problem.
• So while this is not an oppose, it is actionable. I do think that any moves in the direction of contextualizing the subject would make for significant improvement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You pretty much summed up how I was feeling about it too - I couldn't have said it better myself. Sorry Cirt, I too am not opposing though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Jbmurray's points

I have, as you correctly assumed above, scoured many many many databases for archival sources about this book. What is present in this article is what I was able to come up with. During this ongoing FAC I have continued to search for additional sources, so far in vain. I have, as you noted above, responded to many of your points previously raised since before this FAC discussion was restarted. I do not feel that these remaining points are actionable, because it is not the point of this particular article to describe the history of New Age movements, est, the 1970s, etc. - that is the point of articles New Age, Erhard Seminars Training, and 1970s. To be expected to accomplish all of that here, within this article, beyond the brief background already given, is not, in my opinion, appropriate. Better to provide that context at those other articles. If more of that type of context were given in other secondary sources that already discuss and analyze this book itself, I could understand - but to go off and try to do that with other sources which have nothing to do with an analysis of this book itself doesn't seem appropriate. Cirt (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Cirt addressed all my concerns in the last FAC where I went through the prose. I had a concern that the article may not have been researched thoroughly, but that concern has been assuaged. --Laser brain (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, again. I think the article is well-written, direct, and engaging. Makes me want to read the book, despite how creepy I think est is. --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.