From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA Sweeps: On hold[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found several issues that needs to be addressed.

  1. "Raëlians desire to spread that message and work towards building an Embassy where people can officially welcome the Elohim back, and for the first time in human history, actually understand them for who they are, instead of worshiping them as gods as primitive ancestors did." The source that follows this is a MySpace group. This needs to be replaced with a reliable source.
    I simply removed this because it is redundant.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. "...and believe that the mind is a function of matter alone—a paradigm which William James (1964) would call epiphenomenalist." Did James say this in 1964? If so, if the religion was started in the '70s, why is he talking about the religion's viewpoints?
    I clarified it as being Susan J. Palmer's claims (per citation). Palmer uses William James' definition but William James himself is not referenced here.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. I removed multiple external links within the article. These need to remain in the external links section. Review the ones I removed and explain any terms that may be confusing to readers. For example "...and reading Intelligent Design prior to..." What is Intelligent Design? A book by one of the Raëlians?
    I don't think we need the link there. When in doubt, leave out.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    I added a brief explanation of what it is, since readers may not know the book that is being referred to. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. In the organization chart why are the sources in the middle of the table? This should be at the beginning or end of the table.
    I moved them.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. "Issue 331 of Raelian Contact Newsletter suggests that the structure has about 2,300 members,[19] the Raëlian Press Release Site says there are about 170 guides,[20] and an article on says there are 41 bishops." How recently was this issue released? If it's been a while, these figures should be updated.
    I agree that the figures should be updated. However IMHO an acceptable compromise would be to qualify the statement with the year of the newsletter issue. If I can find a new issue with updated figures on this, the I will go ahead and replace it. I think the former is sufficient for GA status.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    The date does clarify. A lot can happen in two years, especially with a growing religion, so try and update this whenever new figures are provided. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. "There are multiple accounts of former clergy of mainstream religions joining the Raëlian Church, especially in Quebec." Address the "citation needed" tag, it has been there since December 2008.
    This drives me nuts. The citation of the next sentence is for both sentences. ***SIGH*** Fixed.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    I know, sourcing can be crazy at times. It's always better to over-source to prevent any confusion. You never know when someone can add a new sentence in between the two sentences from a completely new source (which likely won't be cited). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. "Issue #324 of Raëlian Contact..." Again, provide a date for this for clarification for readers.
    Done.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    For "In a 2006 Issue...", I put "Issue" in lower case since it appears to just be one in a series. If the religion normally always capitalizes this, then please change it back. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. The fair use rationale for File:Raelian symbols.svg needs to be expanded.
    Yet to fix according to standards of legalcruft. :) Will do though.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    Attempted. I hope I satisfied the legalcruft fans. :) It looks nicer anyway...Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. "However, the symbol does not appear on the movement's Hebrew-languague leaflets distributed on various public occasions in Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities." Needs an inline citation; been tagged since April 2008.
    I removed this because the edit was done by an insider. There does not seem to be any third-party source in sight of this.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. The history section should appear prior to the beliefs section. The section should also be expanded a bit more, detailing how the religion started. There are details mentioned in the lead but not in the article. A brief summary of History of Raëlism would be beneficial.
    I moved this section up a hierarchy and copied the lead of the History of Raelism into it.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    I switched the two paragraphs in the history section. Instead of copying the lead, go through the history article and touch on its early years, founding, middle years, and recent years. A paragraph on each era should be sufficient. The second paragraph (the one taken from the lead) should likely be removed, since the following section covers the beliefs of the religion.
  11. There are multiple dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.
    Corrected.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 05:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept[edit]

Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. I went through the article and made a few more changes, please review them. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 06:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)