Talk:Leipzig Human Rights Award/GA1

GA review 1

Okay, I've read this article. Following are comments aimed generally to promote readability by someone not familiar with the subject matter.

copy-editing

footnote 16 has a weird page number issue

lede

when was the award first established? It says "prior to 2001" in regards to its name; the text then says the first award was given in 2000. The true beginning should be clearly noted in the lede.

formation section

Does the Committee that makes the award have independent existence? Or was it formed expressly and solely for the purpose of doing the award? Either way it's not clear in the description. If the award is the primary function of the Committee then that needs to be clearly stated. If the Committee has other actions then they need to be at least briefly mentioned as part of the description of the Committee, and the Committee may merit a separate page. (Or consider a slightly different form that combines the organization and the award.)
This is my most significant concern. In general the descriptions of this award as freedom of speech & freedom of religion & human rights appear at this point to be POV because the background issue is not well explained. As I'm sure you're aware this will be a troll and vandal magnet, so you need to bullet-proof every aspect. You've done a good job with references (at least on a cursory look; they will need to be closely examined too.) But the tie to actual freedom of religion / free speech needs to be explained rather than alluded to, otherwise the article is implicitly taking the organization's perspective. For instance, right now the article says that "the organization's charter cites its concerns over the deaths of LM & PV", but it is left to the reader to assume something relevant about those deaths. So this whole thing needs to be backgrounded better.

I'm reading between the lines here, but I'm going to propose a flow of ideas that might help. Start with something like, "The award was developed in the wake of controversies about scientology that claimed its behaviors amounted to human rights violations, particularly of the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion." Then explain in a sentence or two (at most) the McPherson/Vic connection. Then do the Clinton piece: "In light of these concerns, the Committee founders were outraged when President Clinton was honored with the Charlemagne Award. Clinton had recognized Scientology as a tax-exempt religion -- a status long sought by the Scientologists despite opposition in the US, and the founders of the Committee felt that for Clinton to be awarded the Charlemagne Award made a mockery of that award."

Please note, I'm playing with facts & ideas that I've assumed, based on the article, just to give you a sense of a "flow of ideas" that would better background this award's formation.

Right now the categorization and see also links all tie to the organizations' self-description, but in a controversial subject (as this one apparently is) we need those connections to be clearly made, per my comments above.

award recipients section

The criteria for discussion of particular award recipients needs to be set forth. As it is, it appears to be chronological, but it cuts off without explanation at 2004. If the criteria are "notable" because famous, or controversial, or whatever, then that needs to be explained.
The sentence in "Award recipients" "Gandow cited Minton's actions..." is a little unclear; more explicit - what did he do? also syntax is a bit awkward - something like "Gandow's nomination (or speech) cited as meritorious Minton's actions assisting former scientologists make claims ..., work he did as chair of the LMPT."
The sentence "The Church of Sci was critical" seems a little vague. Critical of the honor? critical of the award? The organization that they formed "opposed to" -- what was its name, and what was its purpose?
The relationship to Gandow's response is completely unclear in the text
There's nothing after 2004; this could be addressed in the beginning of this section; otherwise you need some conclusion

other content

the see also link to totalitarianism seems unnecessarily broad and pointy, particularly in light of my comments above about contextualizing the human rights points. Totalitarianism was mentioned by one award-recipient but it's not a core theme so far as I can tell.

Good work documenting & setting it out. I wish more awards pages treated their formation and notable recipients and controversies at such length! I'll be happy to look at a later version to give more feedback, or to answer questions if I've been unclear. --Lquilter (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing points from GA Review

Thanks so much to Lquilter (talk · contribs) for the above helpful points. I will begin to address them, and make note of it here, below. Cirt (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Done - Fixed page number issue with Reference 16. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Done - Noted year and recipient of first award in lede. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just FYI -- I believe that another editor is doing the "official" review; my comments may or may not form part of that review. (Hopefully they will be helpful anyway.) --Lquilter (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. Well, regardless I will do my best to address your points, and hopefully the GA Review will pass successfully. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

One more quick note - The "totalitarianism" issue is noted in their Charter, so it is not simply something mentioned once by one individual, but central to the organization's message. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, but explaining their use of the word will be helpful; it's not obvious to the uninformed how Scientology is related to totalitarianism. --Lquilter (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it's starting to get farther afield from the actual topic of this article itself. Better to stick closely to the sources, as related to the Leipzig Human Rights Award itself. Cirt (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Definitely, stick to the sources; but you still want to explain the connection. Any group might style itself a "human rights group"; if the Klan described itself that way, I think we would need to explain what they mean by "human rights". Similarly, here, they're looking at something specific, I take it; human rights in connection with Scientology. --Lquilter (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find more explanation in the existing sources on that one. Cirt (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Done -- This addresses a few points from above - I removed the see also section, which seemed to contain duplicates of some info already covered/linked in the article anyways. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Sorry I've been busy w/ other stuff, will address more of the points from above and note them here below, shortly.. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Update

Update: I removed the GA nom, and updated the article history to reflect it. I think I'm going to have to do a bit more research on this, and that will take more time than is allotted for a GA Hold at this point, so I think it's only right to remove the GA nom at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]