Talk:Dharma Bum Temple/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Carabinieri (talk · contribs) 16:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Carabinieri! While I have contributed to several articles that became GAs this is my first ever nomination and the first article that I was the main contributor to that I thought could make it to GA status. So I'm very excited to be working with you on this review. Wikiman5676 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it might take me another couple of days before I'll get around to actually reviewing the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fine. I was actually pretty busy this week so that works better for me anyways. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carabinieri, I have a comment. I don't totally agree with the change you made to lead of the article which states "The temple made headlines in local newspapers in 2017 by buying the 1927-built Swedenborgian Church in University Heights". I don't think that's an accurate statement since it was the campaign to buy, or really the fundraiser, that caught the attention of the newspapers, as opposed to the actual act of them simply buying the church. Newspapers reported on the campaign before the temple even made the down payment and bought it in fact. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for taking so long. Feel free to revert any changes I made you disagree with and please make sure I didn't screw anything else up.

My main concern with the article is that the overall tone of the article feels a bit promotional. As far as I can tell, there's no clear violation WP:NPOV. It's more that most of the sources are either primary sources or coverage in local news which is rather promotional. The article reflects this. I'm not sure how this could be ameliorated. Do you think more sources could be found or something else done about the tone of the article? Two more minor notes:

"The first chapter of the fraternity was founded at San Diego State University (SDSU)" This seems to imply that more chapters were founded yet there's no mention of them.

Fixed. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fn 15 directs you to the temple's home page, but I wasn't able to find the information on there. Could you have it say what page specifically the information is on.

The information was originally on that home page, however it seems like the temple took that bit of information off. I will look for something else to support that statement. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found one and swapped the citation. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you patience.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize most of the sources, even secondary, generally reported on the temple in a promotional matter. I'm not sure how to rectify this either, I can try my best to tone down the language in the article to seem less promotional at best. But as far as i know, the article includes virtually all secondary sources available. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I've made various rewordings throughout the article to try to help it meet neutrality standards, and also cut some details that, although sourced, may have sounded unnecessarily promotional to include. Like you said, it might be hard for this article since the secondary sources tend to cover the subject in a very positive light. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri, I've now made numerous wording changes to the article and cut out some promotional-ish details. Let me know what you think when you have time. If it still doesn't meet standards of neutrality I can take another crack at it but I think at least 90% of what can possibly be done about the neutrality has been done. If i cut out much more details I think the page's value as a source of information on the subject will start to diminish significantly. Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. I've done a little more copyediting. Please make sure I didn't screw anything up again. There are two more things I feel need to be fixed. Footnote 14 cites a television interview and probably needs more information (what channel is this? etc.). The image with the temple's logo currently has Google Images as its source. It should actually give the website that Google got it from.--Carabinieri (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the two points mentioned above. Let me know if the new citation is acceptable as I am not very familiar with how to cite television sources. The google image originally was taken from the official website but for some reason i am unable to find it again. I managed to find the same image on a related official website (the official fundraiser website the temple used for the church buying campaign) and changed the source to that. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, something I missed mentioning earlier is the change of the tense of the number of fraternity members from "had" to "has". It's not likely that the number in the statement reflects the current number. It was just the most recent count from a secondary source available, it is likely the number has changed now, so I think "the fraternity had..." would be more accurate. I didn't want to revert this edit myself because I wanted to check with you first if there was some kind of wikipedia MoS that I don't know about that states that such statements are to be in present tense or something. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it because I think the "As of January 2017" already implies that the number may not be up to date. "As of date, there are this many of such and such..." seems like a standard construction to me. This is mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Current. I'm fine either way though. I'm now satisfied that the article meets GA criteria. I'm going to pass this. Good job on the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the feed back, and thank you very much for reviewing my first GA nomination! Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.