Talk:The Hole (Scientology)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 02:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I will do this review. It seems interesting. PrairieKid (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

See below.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This article requires a copy edit. The grammar throughout has several mistakes. Quotations (such as the one at the beginning), commas, and spelling were some of the most common mistakes made in the article. N

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article cites many refs several times throughout, and about 3/4 of its refs are pages in books, which I am not able to check on, which worries me. I can't simply assume good faith. The Background section's 3rd paragraph needs more citations. N The Media exposure and legal inquiries section's 3rd-7th paragraphs all need more citations. N

Regarding books as citations, I refer you to WP:SOURCEACCESS. Andrew³²⁷ 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Y

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A section called Escaping from The Hole?! The entire article is completely biased against Scientology. "Over the next three years, the number of people confined in The Hole..." N

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   This article has been nominated for deletion over a dozen times. I don't think the article is very secure. ?

Many Scientology articles have been subject to deletion campaigns and other tactics. This pattern ultimately led to a well known ArbCom case. Andrew³²⁷ 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Y

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article does not meet the GA criteria at the time. I don't think it has the potential to be upgraded to meeting the criteria within a reasonable amount of time. PrairieKid (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)