Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

[edit] L. Ron Hubbard

This article has been greatly improved since it's review for WP:GA status. Anynobody 08:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - Let's see here: A whopping (140) citations, (8) images, (6) of which are free-use images, and quite a comprehensive article at that. This looks like a good candidate to me. Smee 09:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Oppose per 1(a), prose is choppy with short, one-sentence paragraphs scattered throughout. Resurgent insurgent 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments
  1. I think for such a large article the lead ought to be expanded per WP:LEAD.
  2. First paragraph in Early life section is only one short sentence - merge it.
  3. "...and later headed West..." to where, why?
  4. "...Church biographies..." can we clarify which church?
  5. Refs [20], [53], [94] need moving in accordance with WP:CITE
  6. Date formats need unification e.g. "March 25, 1930" and "25 March 1924" in same sentence.
  7. Ref's [14] and [15] need a full stop in front.
  8. Education and Early fiction career sections contain a lot of short paragraphs, flow them together.
  9. Is "CoS" defined anywhere? I wouldn't use such acronyms.
  10. Per WP:MOS, avoid links in headings.
  11. Fair use images need fair use criteria applied.
  12. Attribution required for "the creation of dianetics is a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his inventions of the wheel and arch." quotation.
  13. Starting the "Legal difficulties..." section with a long wikilink doesn't look good and, again, too many single-sentence paragraphs.
  14. Probably a good idea to wikilink ₣ to French franc.
  15. You've already got a link to the controversy, do you need to have "(see Scientology controversy)." wikilinking there as well? "The legitimacy of Scientology as a religion." also links to the same article, as does "a portion thereof".
  16. "His next marriage to Sara Northrup - Parsons former girl-friend - happened in August 1946" - does marriage happen? I would seek to reword this.
  17. "Sara Northrup, filed for divorce in late 1950, citing that Hubbard was, unknown to her, still married to his first wife at the time he married Sara." - no need for first comma I think.
  18. Some block quotes in quotations, others not, some in italics, some not - need to be consistent.
  19. I would prefer to seee ref's 138 and 139 with proper titles rather than plain URLs.
  20. External links probably need a good pruning per WP:EL

Hope some of these points help. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. The Rambling Man 14:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't {{Reflist|2}} work better than {{Reflist|3}} here? There's some overlapping text. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed to {{Reflist|2}}. As an aside, it looks like all of the points brought up above are easily addressable, and we can work through those helpful suggestions in quick order, I'd imagine. Smee 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Thanks for the change. It might be a bit of work, as there's a heck of a lot of prose here. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 23:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestions The Rambling Man and agree with Smee that all can be done in a short period of time. I knew the article wasn't "perfect" so I'm happy to get a good list like this :) Anynobody 23:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I've tried to write up some fair use rationales for those two images (how did it pass GA without them?) --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fair use rationales do not explain the specific use of the non-free images in the article. Jay32183 02:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Question: - And if all of the images were given detailed fair use rationales that satisfied this? Smee 02:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
      • I haven't reviewed fully yet, but the article is not allowed to have non-free content without detailed fair use rationales at all, so it is an automatic objection. I will not review further until the rationales are there or the images are gone because it really does not matter. Jay32183 03:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Sounds fair. Then we shall go about adding those detailed fair use rationales. Smee 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Oppose. The article as it currently stands is a poster-child for how to crucify someone by loading undue weight. A real encyclopedia would simply state that many (even most) of Hubbard's claims about himself were disputed by others, and list notable examples such as the ones mentioned here. What a real encyclopedia would not do is systematically dissect them all in extreme minute detail and actually begin arguing points and building a case against Hubbard, as this article clearly and blatantly does. The article almost literally reads like "...then in 1938 Hubbard lied about blahblahblah, and in 1940 he claimed blahblah which was later proven to be false by Prof. Blahblah. Judge Soandso also noted 'I wouldn't believe anything Hubbard said anyway'. Then in 1942 Hubbard lied about....." and so forth. The whole article is one long string of setting up Hubbard claims and then knocking them down. Just because it's true Hubbard lied about his whole life doesn't mean his article is supposed to be a freakin' Master's thesis epic deconstructing it all. I'm sure this is great fun for some people, but as a good encyclopedia article, frankly, it really, really, really sucks. wikipediatrix 04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And do you have any specific suggestions as to how to improve the article towards Featured Article Status, other than the points outlined by the other users above? Smee 04:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Yes: remove all the hyperobsessive junior-detective work that I just referred to, and reduce it to the simple facts and sources. Stabbing a dead guy is sufficient, it's not necessary to twist the knife, urinate on him, and set his corpse aflame. If someone wants to write an article called List of everything L. Ron Hubbard ever lied about in his entire life since childhood, so be it, but that's not the name of this article. (Oh yes, and the image also has problems, see the article's talk page for more about that.) wikipediatrix 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. You evidently have strong feelings about this. Perhaps you should copy the current article into a subpage, say, User:Wikipediatrix/L. Ron Hubbard, and edit it accordingly and then present it to us either here or at the article's talk page, to show as an example? Smee 04:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
It's simple really: just state, for example:

"Hubbard ate a lemon pie in 1968"

and then give a relevant source citation, instead of saying:

"In 1968, Hubbard lifted a fork to his fleshy mouth; the fork, containing lemon pie, was swirled around with his red pulpy tongue, savoring the meringue as it coagulated in reaction to his saliva. Reportedly, crusts of the graham cracker crust were stuck in Hubbard's bicuspids for hours to come, despite his best efforts to work them loose with the aforementioned red pulpy tongue. Others stated that they felt queasy after witnessing Hubbard eat the pie".

Yes, there is such a thing as too much information. Just as we don't need to hear every detail of Hubbard's digestion, we don't need to hear every detail of his sordid past spelled out in gleeful detail, because regardless of what the editors' intent really is, the end result is that the article looks like someone's trying hard to make Hubbard look as bad as possible. (The fact that he makes it so easy to do is beside the point.) wikipediatrix 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think, if you created an example of what you mean, at User:Wikipediatrix/L. Ron Hubbard, instead of, ahem, giving us examples with, shall we say colorful metaphors and language, we would all appreciate that a lot more, and also be able to more precisly understand which areas you want to change and how. Smee 04:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
If my example didn't make it clear, what I am saying is that the article devotes entire multi-paragraph sections to matters that would be better dealt with in a mere sentence or two. Such as: the Blackfeet matter, the India/Tibet matter, his college courses, his war years (why is such an enormous amount of space devoted to his barely-existent military service? the YP-422 section is large, the PC-815 section is HUGE, the Coronado section is also huge, and the "after the war" section is also large), the "Legal difficulties and life on the high seas" section in general, and pretty much everything after the "Biographical controversies" section starts. Even Adolf Hitler's article doesn't come close to this sort of microscopic treatment of misdeeds! wikipediatrix 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Though your comments are helpful, if you were to provide us with an example in your user space, it would give us a model to go on, and sort of compromise between the two versions, or something like that. This is all I will say about that, but an example in user space would be helpful. Smee 05:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
wikipediatrix the inconsistencies discussed in the article are just a sample. After reading several CoS sites they have him doing MANY things not talked about here (on the Hubbard article). Anynobody 07:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
So? That doesn't pertain to anything I just said. This article isn't about Hubbard so much as it is about debunking Hubbard, and way too much text is devoted to it. If you really can't see it, look at other bio articles on controversial people, such as Adolf Hitler.
Ask yourself why the Woody Allen article doesn't contain a section devoted to Mia Farrow's sourceable accusations that he molested their son, or why the Frank Sinatra article doesn't contain a section devoted to media accusations that he hoaxed his son's kidnapping. (If these men had been Scientologists, I bet these matters would be analyzed in microscopic drooling lurid detail!)
Just because criticism exists and may even be true doesn't mean it needs to be in the article and sure as heck doesn't mean it should take up such a huge chunk of the article. Undue weight, undue weight, undue weight. Is anyone listening? Undue weight, undue weight, undue weight. Say it with me. wikipediatrix 13:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, what to focus on first -- Well, certainly the recommendations put forth above, and first, by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), are helpful, but also, they are relatively easy to implement on short order. Perhaps it might be best to table the rest of this discussion, close this FAC, and open another one, even if it is very soon - after we have addressed these initial (20) points, above, including also the fair use image rationales. Smee 00:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Starting a new discussion is way too soon. The fair use rationales are still not acceptable; I checked just now. Also, Wikipediatrix's concern about the focus of the article is legitimate even if you don't understand it. The main reason the concern isn't more specific is most likely because it will take a major rewrite to fix. There is probably also an issue of wordiness as an attempt to disguise the other problems. Jay32183 00:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well then, we have 2 options. Close this FAC, and begin to implement changes, or keep the FAC open, while implementing changes. Smee 00:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Oppose Article has a NPOV tag and really should be broken into separate pages for career, early life, writing, criticism, etc Mbisanz 05:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There is not only a problem with undue weight but also one with an undue mass of information. The section on Hubbard's service in the Second World War is longer than that of Chester W. Nimitz, the commander of the United States Pacific Fleet. And that is not even something he is notable for. Steve Dufour 13:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article has a lot of problems. Some parts of the WP:MOS were not followed. The article has some POV-issues, and in some cases appears confused as to whether its subject is L. Ron Hubbard or the Church of Scientology itself. I've listed out some of the bigger errors, but the editors also need to do some work on the prose. There are areas that are very repetitive and not very well-written.
    • full dates must be wikilinked
    • newspaper and magazine names should be italicized
    • a comma should be placed after a year
    • In Family Relations, you list L.Ron, Jr. (which makes it seem his surname is Hubbard), and then later refer to him? by a different surname.
    • after the first sentence, always refer to the subject by his surname, not his full name or first name.
    • many copyediting mistakes
      • excess commas or not enough
      • verb tenses can be weird (esp. Writing Career)
    • poor prose in general
    • many facts are repeated multiple times (do we really need to be told twice in one paragraph that he allegedly kidnapped a kid?)
    • trivia section needs to go away
    • if you have a Main Article link, do not have a sentence that says to look in a seaprate article
    • citation issues
      • citation 14 has no text
      • citation 34 is not formatted properly
      • is there a way to differentiate citation 37 and 38
      • websites need a publisher (and author, if possible) listed
      • citations 56 and 57 are likewise not properly formatted
    • I think there is an excessive number of external links. Please trim.
    • weasel words aren't cited properly
      • "unusually prolific author and lecturer" (I know this is backed up later, but still needs to be cited)
      • "He became a well-known author "
      • "legendary science fiction editor "
    • I don't believe you need the brief biographies of Hubbard's parents. Please condense.
    • The paragraph on whether or not he travelled to India is really trivia and can be removed.
    • I think it is very POV to say "The Church of Scientology's official account of Hubbard's university career does not mention its premature conclusion." At this point, Hubbard is dead and is not responsible for what the Church of Scientology publishes. This does not belong in his biography.
    • Need to use both standard and metric measurements -- see conversion templates.
    • Is the Explorers Club section really notable enough to be included in the article?
    • Several red links need to be taken care of
    • Is it necessary to detail the plots of some of Hubbard's fiction? Unless there is something especially noteworthy about those plots (and it's not evident in the article), I would not include them.
    • The info about being a special office for the detective agency seems like trivia.
    • Dianetics section needs citations for quotations.
    • Need more citations in Scientology section
    • You've linked to Mary Sue Hubbard multiple times; only link the first time.
    • It's not necessary to mention the current leaders of the Church of Scientology
    • If possible, you should integrate the family relations and writing career sections with the rest of the article.
    • The lead needs work as well. You should need no more than one sentence stating that some facts of his life are disputed. Instead, expand more on aspects of his life that have been confirmed. Also, nowhere in the article is his military service mentioned, so it should not be in the lead.

Karanacs 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose Stubby paragraphs. Needs major copyediting, in the very least removing all single-sentence paragraphs merging them into existing ones. Lead-in paragraph looks too eager to talk about controversies surrounding him where it should simply describe his life's major events with only a brief sentence about the controversies. SeleneFN 23:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unfortunately, it's premature to nominate this article for FA status. As detailed above, it needs a significant amount of work to get it up to scratch. -- ChrisO 06:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose — tagged with "NPOV dispute" and "trivia section" templates, which goes to show that the article is in no way ready for FA status yet. (Ibaranoff24 14:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Oppose Stubby paragraphs, and the article needs a vast cleanup. LuciferMorgan 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose See above. — BQZip01 — talk 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.