Talk:Space opera in Scientology/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 00:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I think the Dianetics centre down the road still has my number but I'll give this a go.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
"Hubbard taught that humans could recall the details of these lives through a process known as auditing" -> I'm quite likely to be wrong, but I believed auditing was the process of removing engrams and achieving Clear; I was told nothing of thetans and past lives (maybe I didn't pay enough).
That's a good point, I was using the term a bit broadly, I know there are a number of different practices in the church and some of them apparently get into the former life stuff eventually. I rephrased to avoid implying that about auditing. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Academics who study religion" -> I know "religious academics" doesn't really work here but is there a better way of going at this? Theologians, theology critics, etc?
How about "Scholars of religion"? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Xenu placed several billion of his citizens onto DC 8 planes" -> DC 8 points at Douglas DC-8, is this right?
I believe so, that's where the link on our Xenu article points. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Because thetans had been "implanted", or forced to believe, various faulty ideas" -> is the use of implanted correct here? It's in quotes so I assume it's meant to be nonstandard but if the parenthetical comes out this reads "Because thetans has been "implanted" various faulty ideas", which is odd.
Ok, I rephrased that to hopefully convey the same meaning with the awkward/incorrect wording. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Urban notes that this is similar to Aleister Crowley's teachings about astral projection, although he notes that Hubbard did not use that term" -> two "notes" here; change the second one to "adds" maybe?
Good catch, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
No issues here.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Seems fine.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Grand.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Some vandalism but not for over a month; would be wise to keep an eye on it (and yourself. those guys don't fuck about).
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Maybe move the Rinder image to the left to avoid three images stacked horizontally like that. Images are fine in and of themselves, all free. (File:Planetstoriesclichecover.jpg is Commons, too, but it might be a bit much);
Moved Rinder to the left, added the comic cover above. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not really sure I'm putting this on hold other than force of habit, but it's a well-written article with little to be addressed. GRAPPLE X 00:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, and double thanks for doing a quick review. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't no thing. Passing. Well done! GRAPPLE X 01:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]