Talk:Tory Christman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a fun one. Initial impressions are that it it surpasses the criteria and there are no quick-fail cpncerns. However, I noticed a few minor issues and will detail it in a full-review over the next day or so as I go through it more.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notes

"science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard" This seems POV. There is a wikilink already and it could easily be read as poking fun. The only thing this article needs to say is that he was the founder.
Lead
- Do "Clear", "Operating Thetan" and "disconnection" need to be in quotes? Also, why is "Clear" capped? I see that it is in that article so it probably isn't an issue with this article but thought it was worth mentioning.
- I like how you kept sources out of the lead but still used one after a quote. Good following of the MoS.
"...in 1993 she took him to Dallas, Texas to visit the site of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." This seems trivial.
Rise within organization
- She recounted her experience of reading the Xenu story upon reaching the level of OT III: "You've jumped through all these hoops just to get to it, and then you open that packet, and the first thing you think is, 'Come on,'" said Christman. Seems off with her describing then followed with "said".
- I think the repetition of [16][17] is visually distracting. Good work using the sources directly after quotes but are both needed for some reason? Maybe just use the source (if there is one) that is of higher quality?
- She recounted these incidents of grand mal seizures, in an interview with CBS News, "So I started having grand mal seizures, and I wasn't even off the medicine. I was only off part of the medicine, and I started having very bad grand mal seizures." Three uses of the word so close together is odd. I understand that you did not want to put a wikilink in t\he quote but a pipe link with the word "seizures" in place of the first instance of grand mal seizures might be better.
Office of Special Affairs
- Quotebox is inline with template instructions.
See also
- Office of Special Affairs does not need to be repeated
External links
- Nice use of YouTube (plugging my essay WP:VIDEOLINK)
- Do the two sources under media need to be there or can they be integrated into the article.
Images
- I personally go for having the subject face the text over staggering. This is not done with the final image but is not prohibited. MOS:IMAGES
- Some editors do not believe you should have images directly under third level headers as you have done.
Overlinking. "Avoid linking plain English words."-WP:OVERLINK with jargon and satire. The blue from so many cities (which may not even need a link) was offputting visually.
- The term "satire" does not need to be wikilinked. A link to the episode's article would be useful.
- inheritance
- jargon
- Is there overlinking with the states being wikilinked after the cities? I don't think that even the cities need to be linked but that is personal thoughts on it without community consensus. I did notice that you did not wikilink CA twice in the section which was good.
- "US$35.00" may not need the "US" bit. It also probably doesn;t need to be wikilinked. Not positive though. WP:$
- "California" does not need to be wikilinked again in the third usage. It is pretty far from the first instance but still is not that useful in building the web.
It could be argued that source 6 has been overused in individual paragraphs and I would double check to make sure you are not repeating its tone if it is overly critical of Scientology.
Altteext would be appreciated.[1]
4 dabs.[2] All removed. Reconsider usage and fix.
Xenu.tv is dead. Is it ELYES or ELMAYBE if it does function in the future?
Yay, persondata used

Pass

A handful of things do not pass my personal preferences but this is a perfect example of a good article. Please take note of my notes and good work. A peer review would be useful in trimming the lead since. I understand it is your style and it is supposed to be a stand alone summary but the ratio is off, IMO. A PR would also be useful in any possible POV concerns. I say possible since it is questionable and I might be knee jerking.

- "Well-written
  - Considered holding based on overlinking but there is some leeway with the MoS
- Factually accurate and verifiable
  - No issues jump out
- Broad in its coverage
  - Certainly
- Neutral
  - Good enough. I think you might run into issues if you go for FA or if editors start disagreeing with the tone. Criticism of Scientology seems piled on whenever possible. I don't know if this is your bias (if any) coming out or if it is the nature of the subject.
- Stable
- Images
  - All checks out. You even cropped an image which was good. Nice use of audio