Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raëlism/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 15:06, 14 August 2007.

[edit] Raëlism

previous FAC

reviewed version → version in response to first FAC criticism by Argos'Dad

The article has Good Article status. Factual accuracy, neutrality, stability, adherence to the manual of style, and proper image use are already agreed upon according to Good Article criteria. The higher standards for in-line citations and referencing have already been achieved before the article passed Good Article Nomination. However, the main issue is whether it is so well written and broad in coverage that it has comprehensive, engaging, and professional prose.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Fails criteria 1a, 2a and criteria 3 is doubtful.
  • This article is not well written. The prose is inartful and the entire article reads like it was written in another language and then ported to en.wikipidia.org (which it may have been). There are phrases that make no sense and even typographical errors.
  • The heading is neither concise, nor a summary of the article and thus fails 2a.
  • The images are strange choices for a church (I understand this church is different, but...) particularly the "Lady on bed adorned with Raëlian symbol" image. I am not sure what this image adds to the article.
    • This objection is now invalid because the image has been since been removed.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 23:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I am dubious about its status as a Good Article (which was awarded 4 hours before this shotgun nomination for FA status), but there is no question it is not FA material. Argos'Dad 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Object to objection - Sandy's comment nullifies this concern. All the above objections ARE INVALID.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 23:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what "object to objection" means in your particular context, but in point of fact, my concerns are both valid and continuing. Your one-editor-revert-war does not eliminate my concerns that the prose and typographical errors make this article not a fit candidate for FA. Argos'Dad 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is the version that passed GAC and these are the changes made since GA passing; only a few hours after passing GA, we're viewing significantly deteriorated prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest a revert to the GA version. Kmarinas86, would you mind removing all those special fonts from the FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Am I really that bad at fixing the prose? LOL. At least we're back to business now.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • You mentioned on the talk page that you had reverted to the GA version, but we're not there yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I've been trying to fix the lead since I reverted to the GA. That's why it does not look the same.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't see a revert; the changes from the GA version now are this. I still suggest a revert to the GA version, followed by a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Reverted again. But this totally undoes what I was trying to do last night, to fix the article according to Argos'Dad's comments. I actually did revert the article (source). First, I decided to delete irrelevant content from the lead, and within it, I moved the criticism part from the second to the third paragraph (source). Then, I removed "Lady on bed adorned with Raëlian symbol" image like he requested (source), and I also tried to make the paragraph a summary of the prose (source), which I think I succeeded at. After changing plurals to singulars, fixing links, and resizing images (source), I tried to make the prose better only by adding hypens (source). Now that I showed that I did revert, would you say that these changes after I gave you the revert you requested were good changes?◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Women are a minority in most chapters of the Raëlian Church, but it is claimed that the Mongolian chapter attracts a female majority." I'm not sure about the phrase "it is claimed". Isn't that a weasel word? The reviewer who passed it for GA rewrote it to that. Is that actually good prose?◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 05:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - For an idea of what to aim for before submitting this as a FAC again, have a look at Bahá'í Faith and Sikhism. Tim Vickers 12:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Raëlianism articles are not hierarchally ordered. Here are some possibilities I have considered:

I moved the page. Hope this helps ;).◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 19:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Time is running out!◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Particularly ugly signature there, which really interferes with the reading of this page. Oppose on the basis of the writing. Here are examples to demonstrate that the whole text needs serious attention. Don't just fix these:
    • "afterwards"—overly informal in this register.
    • Overlinked: Canada? Very obscure country. "Sensual"? We do speak English.
      • Canada is an obscure country? Oh brother -_-. Am I supposed to believe that?18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Canada is a major center for the Raëlian movement. Also, Sensual is the correct word because is it linked to the Raëlians Sensual Meditation. How is that the problem.
      • Canada is overlinked. Two links before, now one. Fixed.
    • Overuse of em dashes. For example, the first one should be a comma.
      • Fixed.
    • Last word in lead: "fronts"—meaning unclear.
      • Fine. But IMO, it's very clear.
    • "The structure of the Raëlian Church is hierarchal religious order"—"a" is missing.
    • Read MOS on "words as words". (e.g., "bishop")
    • Remove "#"
      • Fixed/
    • "twenty-three hundred", "one hundred seventy guides", and similar: why not express as numerals? These are all over the text; harder to read. Read MOS on this.
      • Fixed. Strange, as I was recommended to spell them out-by the automated peer reviewer.
    • "Rael's Girls, in contrast to the Order of Angels, solely consists of ..."—Reverse order of two of these words. Tony 14:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • BAD ADVICE AS IT REVERSE THE MEANING OF THE SENTENCE. I DELETED WHAT IS BETWEEN THE COMMAS FOR YOUR SAKE.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I ALWAYS HAVE SERIOUS ATTENTION WHEN LOOKING AT THE ARTICLE. Apparently that's not what is need. Most of your advice is helpful. But what is not helpful is saying that it needs a lot of work and not making up for saying that for giving advice on all of what you can see. You apparently see more problems than you spoke about. Your objection is valid, but not completely helpful. I don't care if you don't like my signature, either.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It would do to show more respect for people who are trying to help you fix up this article. Kamryn · Talk 08:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Object if you need 8 refs in the lead, esp one that short, it's not a true lead. The lead should summarize the main points of the article and the details and refs will normally be in the body.Rlevse 20:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Object to objection - There are now 4 refs in the lead. Three of them note the GENERALITIES of controversy contained in the controversy section. The controversy section is not MEANT for those generalities. So those have three citations in the lead still. The remaining citation is for the size of the movement-which is essential to introduce the size of the subject-but is covered in more detail in the Raelian membership article. It MATCHES with the history section of the Raelism article. The lead summarizes the text-that's a fact.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "In Belgium, two guide members of the Raëlian Movement were convicted of having sexual intercourse with children on January 15, 1995 of that year, by the Court of First Instance in Brussels (Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles). They were each given a prison sentence of five years. Subsequently, French psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall testified to a Belgian parliamentary board of inquiry that the Raëlian Movement posed a public danger, particularly to children. This claim was contested and the Raëlian Movement sued Abgrall for slander and libel, but lost the case.[8]"
  • I really don't think this should be included unless there are sources saying that the guide members did that because of the Raëlian movement. Elsewise it's just POV pushing. Kamryn · Talk 08:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You really think so? I'll gladly remove it.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 09:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Unless the fact that they are Raelists (?) is significant to their commiting the crime, then yes. We don't fill Christianity, Islam, etc with lists of their followers who have committed whatever crime (the lists would be huge), the same goes for any other religion. Unless their Raelism ties were a significant factor in their motivations I don't think it is particularly relevant and gives the wrong impression ([i assume] there are many followers of raelism who havent done horrible things). As for the psychiatrist's findings, that is one person of the 6 billion people on Earth who haven't issued findings of the like. This reeks of undue weight. Kamryn · Talk 22:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Well that only took a minute.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 19:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Second Comment It turns out that User:Wikipediatrix and I agree. The pictures look better at 240px. User:Wikipediatrix reverted it to 240px. But people with baby-size monitors will not like that. I will have to revert it.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 02:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment all these "Objection to Objection are getting you nowhere. FYI, SandyGeorgia is probably the best FAC reviewer on wikipedia.Rlevse
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.