Wikipedia:Peer review/Priory of Sion/archive1

Priory of Sion

• 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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
There has been tremendous popular interest in the Priory of Sion due to the international success of the best-selling book The Da Vinci Code and the film made from it. Therefore, I've listed this good article for peer review as a way of preparing it to be a featured article candidate. This article was recently copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. Thanks, Loremaster (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Casliber

I was asked if I wanted to have a look and my interest was piqued, liking a good mystery, yet I have to admit I know little about the subject matter. I will tweak some obvious style issues and list any other issues I have here...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your copyediting of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He discovered one of the encrypted messages, which read "À Dagobert II Roi et à Sion est ce trésor, et il est là mort" - should this be deciphered?

...giving detailed evidence that the Holy Blood authors had not reported comprehensively. --> 'investigated' better word here?

OK, some general points:

• avoid too many quotation marks unless there is a memorable quote or word which would lose something by being paraphrased. There are a few which can be rewritten.

• There is some unnecessary repetition of words in places which could be reduced. I saw a few and may tweak one to show you what I mean.

As with all associations, French law required that the Priory of Sion be registered with the government. It was so registered with its statutes at the subprefecture of Saint-Julien-en-Genevois on 7 May 1956, and its registration was noted on 20 July 1956, in the Journal Officiel de la République Française. - eg alot of this could be significantly reduced to, say:

As with all associations, French law required that the Priory of Sion be registered with the government, which took place at the subprefecture of Saint-Julien-en-Genevois on 7 May 1956, and noted on 20 July 1956, in the Journal Officiel de la République Française.

Could be smoothed but you get my drift. I am not that familiar with the subject matter that I would not trust myself not to inadvertently change the meaning.

Good luck. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what you mean when you ask whether this sentence "should this be deciphered". The paragraph translates that sentence in English and then explains what it was supposed to alluded and what it was in reality.
2. The Holy Blood authors investigated comprehensively but, as the following sentence explains, they chose not to report evidence which indicated that they were dealing with a hoax.
3. I've reduced the number of quotation marks in the article. I've integrated the content from two quotes into their respective surrounding text in the Myth section. Only one quote remains because it is memorable.
4. I've replaced that sentence with the one you suggested.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by John Carter

I have some questions about the general phrasing as well.

1. The first sentence's clause, "is a name that refers to several groups, both real and fictitious." It would help a lot if that were expanded upon, particularly indicating which groups are "fictitious." I don't see that word repeated anywhere, so it is somewhat vague.
2. First clause of the second paragraph, "many came to believe it to be the most influential cabal in Western history," could use a direct citation.
3. "The purpose of the Priory of Sion according to its statutes was entered as ..." is rather a strange construction. Maybe something like "The statutes of the Priory of Sion indicate its purpose was..." The second sentence of that same paragraph could use a citation, particularly to verify that the several people mentioned weren't all aliases of a few people.
4. "Primarily motivated by delusions of grandeur..." might have problems. Under the circumstances, I think a citation which explicitly quotes a source stating Plantard had such delusions might be a good idea.
5. "To give credibility to the fabricated lineage and pedigree" paragraph's first two sentences have problems. The primary of these is that there is no indication who created the Dossiers in that mention, although it is mentioned later; all that is said is that they are "false". The text should indicate immediately when and by whom they were created.
6. The text before footnote 25 alleges Baigent et al had an interest in undermining the RCC's institutional reading of history. That should be very well sourced, as at least Baigent is still alive and BLP might enter into the situation. Also, that paragraph, after the numerous citations of each individual writer, lacks any citations reparding their conclusion that the whole thing was a hoax. There probably should be at least one.
7. In fact, a lot of that whole section dealing with the first book might be better placed in the article about the book per se.
8. The list of alleged Grand Masters should be prefaced with something like, "Following that incident, the Grand Masters are listed as being:"
9. Just a few ideas, anyway. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The following are my answers to your questions:

1. "Fictitious" is meant to be synonymous with "mythical". I think the first paragraph of the Lead explains this quite well. Furthermore, the Myth section of the article explains in detail how the mythical Priory of Sion created by Plantard and the different versions of this group described in works of non-fiction and fiction.
2. I've rephrased the sentence. A new citation may not be necessary.
3. The sentence was replaced with your suggestion. I've rephrased the second sentence. A citation may not be necessary.
4. I've provided a source.
5. I simply added the word "created" in the second sentence of that paragraph.
6. The text before footnote 25 is very-well sourced. We are almost repeating what the source stated word for word. We've now cited sources for the concluding paragraph of the HBHG section.
7. The content of the HBHG is already found in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail article. The reason why it is important for it to be here is because of how crucial this book is to the history of Priory of Sion hoax.
8. I added the preface sentence you suggested.
9. Those few ideas were appreciated.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Geoff Plourde

This article reads very well. The writing is good. The first line does make me pause. That might need to be rewritten. Otherwise, everything appears to be cited and in proper order. This article will definitely make FA, now it is just a matter of when. Please let me know when it does! Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The first line was inspired by the one in the Illuminati article. Can you elaborate on what made you pause exactly? --Loremaster (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just that I have never seen it used before. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the only thing that is important is that the line is understandable and accurate which I argue that it is. That being said, I'll definitely let you know if and when this article makes FA. --Loremaster (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by User:Wfgh66

Alas, the article contains several errors, and lacks important citations to some of the claims made. These problems need to be addressed before considering it further.Wfgh66 (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Specify, please. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Since User:Wfgh66, who is a longtime debunker of the Priory of Sion hoax, is the person most familiar with the sources for the content of this article, he should have no problem citing them. As for the claim that the article contains several errors, he should specify what they are. By the way, the article is being peer-reviewed to fix errors. It is not being considered as a featured article candidate yet. --Loremaster (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.

1. Current ref 9 (transcript of 60 minutes program) is lacking all bibliographical information except for the title.
2. Current ref 14 is lacking a last access date. Also don't use acroynyms in the references if possible.
3. What makes http://www.portail-rennes-le-chateau.com/survivor_chaumeil.htm a reliable source?
4. Likewise http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id96/pg1/
5. A number of the book references are lacking page numbers.
6. Current refs 50 has a bare link to the website. Should give a title to the page. Also what makes this a reliable source?
7. Current ref 51 is lacking all bibliographical data besides the title of the website.
8. Current ref 52 has a plain url and no other bibliographical information.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Your comments are helpful enough.

1. The source is properly cited now.
2. I added the last access date and removed the acronym.
3. I removed that sentence which cited that unreliable source.
4. I removed that unnecessary source.
5. Unfortunately, although I have read many of them, I don't have easy access to most of those books. Only User:Wfgh66, the person who read and cited those sources can promptly add the lacking page numbers if it so pleases him...
6. I removed that unreliable source.
7. I removed that unnecessary source.
8. I removed those unnecessary sources.

--Loremaster (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from SGGH (talk · contribs)

I suggest (and hope I'm not duplicating ideas above):

1. "translated from French to English" is the "to English" not a bit superfluous? If you keep it, it ought to be wikilinked like French is.
2. "a name that refers to several groups" could be "refers to several groups" or "is the name of several groups" perhaps?
3. double use of French in the opening two sentences, perhaps more French to the end as "dissolved in 1956 France."?
4. Mass paragraphs with only one citation, does this mean the entire paragraph comes from this sources? At times this could be confusing.
5. The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail section has a lot of bullet points that ideally could be prose.
6. The Bloodline movie, 2008 could be linked to 2008 in film
7. any external links to make up an external links section?

Good article, any other issues I believe have already been raised. SGGH ^speak! 11:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I prefer keeping it (because of the confusion over the word "Sion" and "Zion" in French and English) so I'll wikilink the word "English" to the English language article.
2. I decided to go with "is the name of several groups".
3. I decided to go with "dissolved in France in 1956".
4. Mass paragraphs with only one citation does mean the entire paragraph comes from this source.
5. I prefer bullets points because I think it better illustrates the importance of these sentences.
6. I've linked "2008 documentary film" to the 2008 in film article
7. The Further reading section is the External links section. However, we are trying to avoid expanding this section because too many crackpot conspiracy theorists tend to add external links to their personal web pages when the article is not being watched.

--Loremaster (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)