Wikipedia:Peer review/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/archive1

Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
  

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently achieved WP:GA quality status, looking for input to help improve writing style further, tweak prose, etc. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Notes left for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on automated peer review

I looked over the automated peer review, nothing much to address from there. The lede conforms with WP:LEAD, the article uses appropriate linking, an infobox is not necessary, and the article utilizes all available relevant material from reliable sources after exhaustive researching. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

From Moni3:

• Is there no reception or critical analysis of the book? If you're planning to take it to FAC, that would be a major obstacle.
• I think the article so far is well-written and comprehensive until that reception and analysis point. What are your plans there? --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit (talk · contribs) and I have done a bit of work and research, but have been unable to find reception/analysis information. Perhaps you could try as well? Cirt (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm stunned. Nothing on the writings of William S. Burroughs? Is Scientology such literary plutonium? I'll look, but the only glimmer of hope I can provide is that my library might have something that Awadewit's does not. I'll do some looking. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, anything further as far as additional material from WP:RS sources about the book would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"I'm stunned. Nothing on the writings of William S. Burroughs?" That should tell you something. It is a collage of ramblings and thoughts from years gone by and not a serious work of literature. It's like issuing an album of composed of various outtakes to get another Elvis Presley recording. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, we are not here to critique and discuss our own analyses of Burroughs' work itself. That would be WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, that is more or less what has happened in the article, as you have the views of a few nonliterary POV commentors plus "biographical" use of the book. This is a book that is out of print now, and was never taken seriously as a work of art. Hence Moni3's comment about being "stunned" that after twenty some years, there is no literary comment. What reason do you give for a book written by a great writer receiving no critical comment whatsoever? Already this article and its POV is number one on Google if you look up the book. This peer review is number two. This kind of thing gives Wikipedia a bad name. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are the nonliterary POV commentators? Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For one, Paulette Cooper. Is this article supposed to be a serious evaluation of Scientology? I would add the various anti-Scientology and brainwashing books quoted. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's two out of how many sources? Paulette Cooper's book is simply being used to quote Burroughs himself, that's not really an issue. And the other book you refer to is published by Kent State University Press. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Forget it. You do not appear amenable to change. I will probably take it to GAR if I am going to go through all the work of reviewing the references. Why are even two readily apparent? Why introduct a blatantly anti-Scientology book into the article at all? I will repeat: Already this article and its POV is number one on Google if you look up the book. This peer review is number two. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, 2nd time now I have asked you to WP:AGF in your comments on this site. Please also avoid usage of bolding in this manner, it is inappropriate and unnecessary. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is WP:AGF? Please, assume some WP:AGF with me and stop accusing me. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Forget it. You do not appear amenable to change. I will probably take it to GAR if I am going to go through all the work of reviewing the references. -- Disagreeing with someone is not a lack of AGF. However not bothering to even check the references in an article before arguing about them, most certainly is. As is language such as that you are using, as is usage of bolding, as is repeating yourself and stubbornly refusing to make specific comments as opposed to generalized complaints, as is taking your personal disputes with other users across multiple pages on this project, which in and of itself is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please stop. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I happen to think that it is extremely important how Wikipedia presents information to the world. You did not respond to the fact that anyone looking up this book on Google get as number one this article, and number two this peer review with the brainwashing and anti-Scientology books being quoted. How can I get your attention on this issue? I do not believe that saying I will take the article to GAR has anything to do with WP:AGF. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: Related ANI thread. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am not wikihounding. It is a coincidence that I commented on two articles in which User:Awadewit was involved. I admit that I was offended by Awadewit's comments on the other article, which I felt were condescending to me and others. However, I did not realize Awadewit was involved in this article until after the dialogue between Cirt and me started. I apologize to all involved. I and User:Geometry guy have been involved in trying to keep Scientology articles from being POV and I carried those views learned from him to here. I feel strongly about this issue. I am sorry if I offended anyone. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Mattisse, you can't "assume bad faith" the minute you show up at an article. You assumed both Cirt and I had a POV. You assumed the sources were POV. Both of these accusations were made without evidence. Awadewit (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• I presented my evidence in the GAR. I said in my opinion the article is POV. Saying an article is POV is AGF? My goodness, how does one tiptoe around that? Criticism, it seems, means I have no AGF. I do not want to get into a discussion with you. In the discussion yesterday, you were condescending in your comments to me and to others. You said you knew you were right and that you knew what should be in the article from your own personal experience, and the rest of us were too dense and could not see what was clear to you. My opinion here has been disregarded. My AGF was called into question. If you want comments and help from others, I suggest that the ugly atmosphere set up by constantly calling someone's AGF into question is not the way to do it. This is the same atmosphere as FAC. —Mattisse (Talk)