Talk:Space opera in Scientology scripture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Space opera in Scientology scripture is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 10, 2005.
To-do list for Space opera in Scientology scripture: edit · history · watch · refresh

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Has this page been vandalized?

Just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.135.159 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't make it up 13:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostyndebeer (talk • contribs)

[edit] Comments

These are all comments from someone who does almost exclusively A-Class review, not GA review. I hope everyone remembers that. I can be a real pain about details, too, and I hope everyone notes that as well.

The quote at the end of the intro needs sourcing. The first paragraph of the "Scientology and science fiction" section has problems. The "However" starting the second sentence does not belong, and the paragraph could probably stand being restructured so that the mention of the higher levels, who are aware of the space opera doctrines, follows more directly the first sentence. Alternately, the first sentence could be moved. The reference to Miscavige later is confusing, as I can't tell whether it's referencing his status as leader or statements by him and others. The public denial should be referenced though. Quote in first paragraph of "Scientology's view of the universe" needs sourcing. "trillenia" in the next paragraph should be explained. I personally haven't a clue what it's supposed to mean. Starting the paragaph with "However" is probably a bad idea too. Next paragraph says Hubbard mentioned other such "incidents". Elaboration of one or more directly thereafter, or at least reference to the later section detailing such incidents, and sourcing would be welcome. All paragraphs should preferably have at least two, and definitely one, citation each. "Scientology's history of the universe" needs sourcing. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. John Carter 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I'll try to address some of this stuff at some point soon. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Good Article review

I will be doing the Good Article review on this article - it will take me a day or two to read it and make comments. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, thanks, much appreciated. There is some history too, it is a former featured article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
    • I have had a quick read through and will work on a detailed list over the next several hours, but I would agree with the general idea of the points above - the references need to be made consistent throughout (there are currently at least two styles of citation) and everything that is a direct quote (or even a paraphrase / attribution likely to be disputed) needs a reference / citation. I have not yet looked at the FAR. I saw that it existed, but thanks for the heads-up on it too, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

On Hold Failed

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Fairly well written, but could use a good proofreading. For example, here is a word missing (italicized) from the lead "The thetan has had innumerable past lives and it is accepted in Scientology that lives antedating the thetan's arrival on Earth were lived in extraterrestrial cultures. Relies on fairly large quotations that could be better integrated into the text (use smaller sections). The beginning reads better than the end, which is fairly listy. Organizationally, perhaps Scientology's history of the universe could follow the Alien civilizations section (so we know who the Espinol etc. are) and the Key incidents section (so we know what all these implants are). Theta universe vs. our MEST universe is very short - could it be made a subsection?
    B. MoS compliance:
    Huge problems with the references / citation systems. I think there are three reference styles used here: numbered footnotes (using <ref> tags); giving the reference in the text, so from Alien civilizations section under Targs the ref is "(Electropsychometric Scouting: Battle of the Universes, April 1952)"; and finally giving the just the author's name with bibliographic information below, in Non-Scientologists and space opera a large quote is cited just by "(Corydon)" which presumably refers to the book by Corydon and Hubbard Jr. given below.
    Even reasonably complete citations (like ref 1: "The Making of L. Ron Hubbard", Los Angeles Times, June 24, 1990, pg. A40) appear to be missing some data (here the author's name). Many web references are just direct links (url only) and need title, author and/or publisher, date accessed (I like to use {{tl:cite web}} but this is not required). The basic idea is to give as much information on the source as possible, so others who are interested can find it. What does HCO stand for in "HCO Bulletins"? Where does one get the "Lectures by Hubbard"? I would not put ISBNs directly in the text. Look at all the refs - make the consistent. All books need publisher and its location, etc. Finally, there seem to be references (Hubbard lectures for example) that are not explicitly cited. If not, then perhaps "For further reading" or some sort of similar heading is needed (or cite them to meet other concerns)
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    While it has a lot of sources, I was not able to check the print ones, but did check all the online ones. Some do not appear to be reliable sources - for example current ref 4 is from about.com, refs 2 and 8 are the same and could be combined with <ref name="">, ref 9 (http://members.cox.net/batchild1/transcript/night2.htm) is a dead link (try the Internet Archive, but I doubt that members.cox.net is a WP:RS), refs 1 and 22 are the same article - could combine them and just put both page numbers in. Please also see 1a and 2b for specifics on use of sources.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    There are many direct quotations without references. Just in the lead paragraphs, "meat body" and "very strange insect-like creature[s] with unthinkably horrible hands." need refs (these are just examples - reference all direct quotes). Please also provide references for any indirect quotes (so and so stated/said etc) and any extraordinary claims. Here is an example of both in the Scientology and science fiction section: "It is knowledge so dangerous, members are told, that anyone learning this material before he or she is ready could die." (indirect quote "members are told" and extraoridnary claim - I read it and am (still) alive). Every paragraph should have at least one reference. For example, the last two paragraphs on the Scientology and science fiction section are unreferences and include a large direct quote. The section Scientology's view of the universe is four paragraphs and has only one reference (for a direct quote of a definition). Lots more examples of this.
    C. No original research:
    Assuming good faith here - without references this is hard to tell.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    From reading the talk page discussions, it seems that the official Church of Scientology position is that while Hubbard did say many of these things, they are a relatively minor part of the overall doctrine (hope I am summarizing this well). I also know there have been lawsuits over publication of some of this material, which presumably have official Scientology arguments about it and would be public. None of that is mentioned here - to be WP:NPOV, this needs to be presented too (although its weight need not be anywhere near the weight of opposing views, which come from many sources).
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Image:LRonHubbard-Dianetics-ISBN1403105464-cover.jpg and Image:Sea org.png need fair use rationale for each article they are used in (including this one), see Image:Kara Zor-El.jpg for an example. Easily fixed.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    This caption could be clearer (and in past tense): The planet Venus, where Hubbard says we temporarily go when we die, in Thetan form, to an alien "landing station".. I think it means Hubbard said when we die we temporarily go in Thetan form to an alien "landing station" on (at?) the planet Venus. (this quote needs a ref). Easily fixed.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On Hold Fail

I read the article many times, as well as the FAR, Peer Review, and I believe all the Talk Page discussions. I tried to give examples of what needs to be fixed but not an exhaustive list. I seriously thought about failing this, but think with work it can be brought up to GA standards. You have a week from now to fix these points. I will check back in two days to see how you are doing and would be glad to answer questions about this anytime. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you, your detailed suggestions above will be very helpful in improving the article's quality. I will make corrections to the article, and note them here below. Hopefully we will be able to see enough improvement within the article in Seven Days. Cirt (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
    • OK, I converted refs 2 and 8 to {{cite web}} using the name="glossary" option for illustrative purposes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I am familiar with the WP:CIT format, and now that I see that's specifically what you were talking about, I'll go ahead and reformat all the cites in the article to that format. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
        • Just to be clear - it does not have to use the cite templates, but it should have all that info (and since I am most familiar with cite templates, I just used cite web). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I know, but I like to try to use the cite templates where possible anyway, so that it will be easier for the next person to figure it all out and for a bit of standardization/uniformity. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

(unindent) I agree about cite templates - this is my formally checking back in 2 days review. Glad to see some edits towards meeting GA, but much work is still needed in the remaining five days. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for checking back in. I know, I know, I was planning on doing a major overhaul/implementing some of your above points, at some point tomorrow. Cirt 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC).
    • I am not trying to be a pest, the first GA review I ever did, I checked back in 2 days with no changes, so I left no notice. Then I felt bad and gave them 2 more days after the week, so now I try to just touch base. Looking forward to the improvements and thanks for the quick reply, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: - My apologies to Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), who has given us a really great review and some good pointers above on how to improve this article, but it seems that I have not improved the article in the requisite time. On top of that, another editor has come in and added a lot of {{fact}} tags, which are appropriately needed in the article and I agree with the fact tag placements. This article clearly needs a lot more work to get up to GA status, and I just have a lot of other stuff I'm working on at the moment. I probably come back to this article later, and in the meantime, the very helpful suggestions on how to improve the article remain above. I will fail the article myself and update the history. Thanks again to Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs). Cirt 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
        • Reply No need to apologize, I feared that it might be too much work for one week (although I think you still have a day to go), but I am glad the review suggestions are helpful. Thanks for doing the "paperwork", Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unhelpful Fact-bombing

The mass addition of {{citation needed}} tags by Andreasegde isn't particularly helpful, especially when they all seem to have been added during four minutes of scanning the article and dropping them on the end of most paragraphs. In some cases, the need for an added reference is obvious, in others (when Hubbard returns to sci-fi writing) there's no clue of what needs to be referenced. In fact, I get the impression that every single paragraph that didn't end in a reference has now been tagged. If so, that really is nonsense. AndroidCat 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I must respectfully disagree with AndroidCat (talk · contribs) on this one, and side with Andreasegde (talk · contribs)'s actions. Perhaps they may have seemed haphazard, but the fact remains that lots more facts in the article could use the {{fact}} tag. It was good enough to have been featured once per older standards, but now it's hard to discern what sources were used where, and that's why cites should be clarified throughout the entire article. Cirt 06:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] In-universe

There is an in-universe tag on the "Alien civilizations" section, complaining that it is writing about fiction that has been written about as though it was real. I thought the point was that this stuff was claimed as real. Is there a complexity that I don't understand or should the tag go? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I took it off - while I agree the section should be rewritten, that tag on this article is just inflammatory. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)