Talk:Clarence 13X/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 12:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Good
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Nothing but constructive edits (and snarky edit summaries)
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	See below
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good, I think
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1

Lede

"numerology teachings" - numerology teachings or numerological teachings?
- Numerological wasn't in my spell checker, but that does sound better, changed.
"only five percent of the population know and promote the truth." - Present or past tense? Truth about what?
- Shifted to past tense for consistency, hope that works. (and explained)
"The mayor of New York City and several other prominent leaders attended his ceremonies." - Funeral?
- Changed.

Early life and Nation of Islam

"pudding" - Capital?
- Yep, good catch.

Founding of the Five Percenters

Why is John referred to as Shahid afterwards, but Clarence referred to as Clarence?

Because I forgot :)

Who is Simmons and why is he pertinent?

I guess not everyone knows who he is, good point.

"After a United States Supreme Court decision (Pate v. Robinson) in 1966, limits were place on the confinement of mentally ill criminals, causing many to be released. Clarence 13X was consequently released in March 1967." - Could be merged with above paragraph.

Ok, moved it up. I was going to create a stub on that but got distracted. Maybe I still will.

Cooperation and conflict

"he admitted that his previous teachings about racial hatred were wrong around this time. " - Who?

Noted.

Last three paragraphs are sort of here and there.

Yeah, they really were. Tried to reorganize a bit, let me know what you think.

Death

That politicians attended is not here.
- Yeah, I'll recheck, but I think that was an error on my part in the lead.

General

Double check your capitalisation with god - God. Hell will be raised at FAC if you make a mistake.

Yeah, that is tricky, now I have all occurrences of "God" capital, and "gods" lower case.

Also, capitalisation of "Earth(s)" or earth, both the planet and the people.

Ok, think I fixed it.

3

Did you use those "in the name of Allah books" you have in further reading? They'll ask about it at FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't use them, I have my doubts over whether they'd qualify as "high-quality reliable sources". I think they were published by the Five Percenters in-house publishing label to give their account of their history, so I don't see them as being independent/third party. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may qualify under SPS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I doubt it, but I'll check around and see what I can find about the author/book. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6

The FUR for File:Clarence 13X.jpg needs to be beefed up. I think the one I use at File:Oerip Soemohardjo.jpg is nice and strong. Also, source link is not working for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Ugh, I hate when this happens. I did some searching, and I can't find anything about that picture, or any good alternatives. The official Five Percenter website is no good either, it's something out of 1992 web design. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any of your books? A scan could work. (Tim scans some of his pictures from old newspapers, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, this was used in a book cover. You may be able to crop it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahh, good find. I uploaded it as fair use, did I fill out the criteria correctly? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Have to show that it has previously been published. The immediate source may not be the best for showing that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright, I fixed that myself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

On hold for seven days. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I think I've taken a stab at all your comments, thanks for the review. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Passing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not my position to comment but has anyone looked into Michael Muhammad Knight? An obscure character who has written much of his own wiki page yet here he has been sourced 77 out of 99 times, particularly in reference to specific inflammatory statements. Using the same source for roughly 77% of all the information here seems unnecessary? Further more, MMK could be described as a controversial provocateur to say the least taking part in deliberate publicity stunts. It would also appear that his study of the 5% nation would be one of the only non-fiction books he has written. Perhaps his claims are true but every single one should come with an appropriate disclaimer. 86.7.160.101 (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]