Wikipedia:Peer review/The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power/archive1

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

The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power[edit]

The only "article history" that this article has, is that it was up for deletion, back in May 2007, with a resultant Keep consensus. Recently, I expanded the article from this: 10 September 2007, to this: 26 October 2007. In the process of doing so, I was able to find (27) more good sources, (2) free images (Supreme Court of the United States), and I added a chronological table to the very end.

I am interested to hear what more can be done to improve the quality of the article, and where you think I should go from here, whether it be WP:FAC, WP:GAC, or more work. Thanks for your input.

Cirt 16:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC).

Disclosure

I have posted a notice about this Peer Review, at relevant WikiProjects including: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism. I am also posting a notice to individuals who had previously commented at the prior Deletion discussion, who after a quick look at their contribs I don't think would know about this Peer Review from the WikiProject postings. Let me know if this was okay - as a Peer Review is not a vote, or a promotion discussion like WP:GAC, WP:FAC, or of course WP:AFD, more feedback should be okay, and this is not meant as spam, but reaching out for suggestions. Thanks. Cirt 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC).

Not even near GA

My review was requested, as I commented at the AfD. There are several major problems:

  1. the article is a WP:COATRACK -- the entire section on "contents" is devoted to the recital of a number of attacks on Scientology. Regardless of their merit, they are covered more appropriately elsewhere in WP. Some of the other material is also not actually relevant to the topic of the article, such as the award to Paulette Cooper
  2. Some of the references are not RSs, such as about.com., and some are irrelevant to the subject of the WP article. A few might be better as external references.
  3. I am not certain about NPOV. If the lawsuits are covered, the accusation brought in them must be reported more exactly.
  4. citations are good, but it is quite possible that the number here is considerably in excess, and represents an attempt to bring a many accusations against Scientology as possible, interlocking with other articles. The opinions of, say, Seinfeld, about the article, are not really encyclopedic content. However,some of them, such as the award, do serve well to rebut what i said at the AfD that the article itself was not notable, only the controversy. DGG (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Done - I went ahead and removed the About.com citation. Cirt 01:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Thank you for responding so quickly to the Peer Review request. I get that you feel this article is not currently ready for WP:FAC, and that you feel we should instead think towards a potential WP:GAC, which is what I will focus on for the time being. As to some of the statements above like allegations of "coatrack" and claiming that the fact that Paulette Cooper was awarded the same prize for the same qualifications in the same year for also writing about Scientology is not relevant - some of these comments unfortunately do seem a bit subjective to me. However, that's okay, that's what this Peer Review is for - to suggest lots of ideas, take a few, and try to improve the article's quality status. I would really also like to hear from some individuals with varied perspectives, perhaps someone coming from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism background and experience, but we shall see. Some of the above points are specific in nature, and might be better off addressed in a more lengthy discussion on the talk page at a later point, instead of the Peer Review. However, the suggestions do stand and I do take note of them. I will also endeavour to find more sources for the Church of Scientology's specific accusations as you requested, to add to the litigation section. Thanks again, Cirt 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  •  Done I utilized an opinion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to expand a bit more on the Church of Scientology's specific allegations in its initial complaint filing. However, if you find more sources for additional Church allegations in the initial complaint, or elsewhere, please don't hesitate to let me know. This was a good idea, by the way. Cirt 02:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  •  Done I shortened the "Contents" section a bit, removing superfluous information about the suicide, that was not directly relevant to the article itself. If you now read through the "Contents" section, it actually is useful by providing a brief background of the article, which the Church of Scientology itself later quotes in its lawsuit against TIME magazine, so it's good for the reader to first know what they are suing about, at least briefly. Cirt 09:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
  •  Done DGG (talk · contribs) is correct, the Jerry Seinfeld reference and his comment on "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power," though interesting, is not encyclopedic, and especially not when the rest of the "Analysis" section deals with secondary sources, not celebrities. When I put it in there initially, I thought it noteworthy that he was asked and then commented on this at all, but upon reflection I agree with DGG, so I removed this portion. Cirt 09:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
Automated Peer Review
  1. There may be an applicable infobox for this article. --  Done I modified the infobox from the main TIME article. I think it actually looks quite nicer than just the plain image of the cover sitting by itself. Cirt 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  2. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked. --  Done Cirt 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  3. There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. --  Done I did a quick check, and all instances of the word "allege" are appropriate. They are from either David Miscavige or the Church of Scientology, attributed as such, backed up by WP:RS citations, and must be phrased in this manner due to the state of the legal case as of that point in time. Cirt 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  4. The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.  Done There is only one use of the word "aren't", and that is from the title of an article, and it only appears as a citation in the References section itself. Cirt 17:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  5. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. -- This is always a good idea, no matter what the quality rating of an article, to go through and do copyediting and syntax adjustments for ease of reading and clarity. But I will work on this and might try to enlist the help of an experienced copyeditor. Cirt 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC).