Wikipedia:Peer review/Mary Sue Hubbard/archive1

Mary Sue Hubbard

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is something of a rescue job - a complete rewrite from scratch of an article that had some major problems in its original form. I'd like to get it up to GA and if possible FA standard, so a peer review would be useful. I would appreciate some feedback on the article before I put it up for a GA nomination.

Thanks, ChrisO (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: For someone like me, who doesn't know much about Hubbard or Scientology, the article is very informative. However, parts of it, the latter half in particular, read more like crime reporting than an encyclopedia article. This is good for readability, but we have to aim to sound neutral. I have pointed out instances where I think this problem is particularly prevalent. Here is the full list of points.

• Lead
  • Just a thought, but I'm not sure that the information in the lead is presented in the best order. The most important facts should be summarised in the first paragraph; I'm don't think that her having four kids qualifies. On the other hand, if she invented or co-invented the Scientology name, that might be thought important enough for the first para, as might some mention of her downfall and imprisonment. I'm not suggesting any major re-write, just some juggling of material.
  • Very minor: "She was credited" → "She is credited"?
• Early life: I've fixed a couple of commas. Also:-
  • Clarify what Hubbard resigned from
  • The last sentence is too long and convoluted, needs splitting. I'm confused by its ending - the word "Scientology" looks isolated. You could end "otherwise called Scientology", but personaly I would just delete the word. The sentence does need a citation, however.
• Establishment and expansion
  • Delete "The" from section title per MOS
  • I don't read any follow-up to the statement in the lead that Sue hepled coin the term "Scientology"
  • "visa" should presumably be "visas"
  • "They went back to London in December on a fresh visa and stayed there until the end of May 1953, before departing for an extended holiday in Spain." As written this sentence doesn't add anything. Why did they spend six months in London?
  • Could we have some explanation of the role of "Academy Supervisor"
  • "The Hubbards continued to carry out auditing of each other..." What does this mean? And you say they "continued" - when did this start (whatever it is)?
  • "...a somewhat elite rank at that time" This reads as POV.
• Life at sea
  • "...a string of mistakes that infuriated Hubbard." What kind of mistakes were these?
• Guardian's Office scandal
  • Delete "The" from section title per MOS
  • "In the UK alone, it..." "It" has to be specified as the GO
  • "Its eventual downfall was to result from the use of illegal methods, ordered and authorized by Mary Sue, to further its campaign." Reads as POV, and also anticipates what hasn't yet been covered in the article.
  • The remainder of this section is rather loaded with non-neutral language. There are POV expressions ("The situation was potentially disastrous for the GO..." is just one example. Adjectives such as "extremely" should always be avoided - they destroy neutrality.
• Downfall
  • "Hubbard nonetheless remained active in the management of Scientology." Specify that you mean L. Ron
  • I don't think the 500-word affidavit should be incorporated into the text. It is a source, to which salient points should be cited.
• Life after...: no particular comment
• General points
  • Some online references are not properly formatted
  • Page ranges in references need ndashes, not hyphens

I hope you finds these points helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)