Talk:Bare-faced Messiah/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Looks interesting, this should be fun to review. Comments to follow in the next couple days. I'm a fairly slow reviewer, so this could take a while, sorry for any delay. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I've read through it and it looks great. Very interesting and well written. Only a few comments/copyedits needed, nothing major:
• Did you want to use the serial comma? The usage is inconsistent.

• Can you give me an example? Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I checked again, and it was only being used once. You might want to check that sentence though, not sure if it reads well without the comma.

• "The Church strenuously denied this accusation and a private investigator involved in the campaign denied that the Church was his client.[2][3] The Church" A little repetition here, is there a good way to avoid starting consecutive sentences with "The Church..."

• I've reworded this, see what you think. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've made some copyedits, feel free to revert if you disagree.
• You repeat "United States" and "United Kingdom" a few times in the article, might want to abbreviate some later mentions as US and UK. Also, make sure it's standardized to "U.S." or "US".

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Complete sentences in image captions should end in a period.

• Done, hopefully. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• There's a little repetition in the second paragraph of "Background and synopsis", particularly "such as" and "covers".

• I've made some changes which should fix this. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest "Reaction from Hubbard's followers" rather than "Reaction from followers of Hubbard", not a big deal though.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• "His family was approached by private detectives" Whose family is this?

• Clarified this. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the MOS frowns on wikilinks inside of quotations, so I'd advise against it, although some people do it.

• Not sure about this to be honest, I'll look into it. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, a lot of people leave them in, even at FAC.

• "adopting a strategy that has been described as" Might want to note who described it this way.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Much of the dispute centred on the plaintiffs' argument that the actions of former Scientology archivist Gerry Armstrong in providing Miller with unpublished materials (whether directly or indirectly) was a breach of his duty of confidence to the Church" Is "was" correct here or should "were" be used?

• "Were"; I've changed it. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• "It also claimed that copyright had been violated through the unauthorised excerpting of unpublished materials and books written by Hubbard, and that it would interfere with New Era's own plans to publish an "authorised" biography based on the same unpublished materials." There's some repetition of "unpublished materials" here.

• Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• There's not much about the suits in South Africa and Australia, not a big deal for GA, but if you're going for FA someone might bring it up.

• That's for the simple reason that I have no info about either. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not a big deal then.

• Might want to briefly note who Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. is, ditto for Martin Gardner.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The Church of Scientology, predictably, was" Not sure if you need "predictably" here.

• I took this out. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Writing in Kingdom of the Cults" Might want to note what this is, a book? a journal?

• I added an explanatory gloss. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• "bizarre career." Check for logical punctuation here.

• Not sure what you mean, can you clarify? Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I mean I think it should be "Bizarre career"., with the period after the quote mark.

• "Michael Harrison of the Toronto Financial Post criticised" I'd have put "Michael Harrison of the Financial Post of Toronto criticised" That might just be a preference issue on my part. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• To be honest, I think it works better the way it currently is... Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sure, that's fine, just a preference issue on my part I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I wrote an early version of this article, which was quite good. No, let me not pretend to be modest. It was astoundingly good. My opinion of the current version is that it is too prolix. It's okay, though. Thanks for the hard work, everybody. --TS 02:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• LOL, thanks for weighing in. I hope the recent changes didn't damage the article too much--prolixity is rampant around here :) Alright, excellent work. Interesting, well-written article here, glad I signed up for the review. Article passes GA. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I can't deny that Tony's version contains all the key facts; mine is just fluffier. ;-) Thanks very much for your time and assistance, Mark. Prioryman (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)