Wikipedia:Peer review/Church of the SubGenius/archive2

Church of the SubGenius[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I had a good pr before I submitted this to GAN, and I'd like to request a second PR before going to FAC with this. I'm not picky, please point out any troubling aspects of the article. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't envy you this one, Mark. My review probably won't be much help, as this group's bizarre teachings would be difficult enough to process at the top of my game, much less recovering from a stomach virus, as I am now. Still, hopefully there's something of use to you in here, and I wish you luck in pushing this thing through GAC and FAC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

"The Church of the SubGenius is an American parody religion that targets established faiths." Do we know there are no followers outside the U.S.? If there are, does it still qualify as an "American" parody religion because it started there? Also, in light of "...a few academics have defended it as an honest system of deeply held beliefs", is it POV to call it a "parody religion"?
"described by commentators as fictional" Is there a more specific word than "commentators" we can use here? Anyone who comments on a subject is technically a commentator. What kinds of specialties do these commentators have?
"The group is often compared to Discordianism; the two ideologies are similar in many ways, but there are clear differences." The part after the semicolon doesn't really tell us anything new; it should be elaborated on or eliminated.

Origin:

"SubGenius members constructed an elaborate account of the life of Dobbs, which is described by commentators as fictional." Besides my earlier comment, this is the second mention of it without elaboration. I, as a reader, keep expecting to find out what parts of the Dobbs narrative are believable and which ones aren't. I know this is discussed in the Beliefs section, but can some of that be transferred here?
"Some of their discussion centered around a powerful conspiracy, to which the Church attributes command of the world." I'm not sure I really understand this sentence. Can it be stated another way?
I assume that the consecutive sentences about Jehovah 1 being "relatively evil" and "relatively good" are just part of the confusing system of beliefs embraced by the church.

Conspiracy and "Slack":

"the Church teaches that Dobbs has empowered its members to see through these illusions" To what does "these illusions" refer?

Members:

"Notable associates of the Church include Mark Mothersbaugh, Mojo Nixon, Paul Mavrides, Paul Reubens, members of Negativland, and R. Crumb." Could we include short descriptors of who these folks are (e.g. "actor Paul Reubens")? I only knew one of them.
We'll never be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if we refer to Pee-wee's Playhouse as a "work of art"! LOL

Instructions:

"Church leaders have issued specific instructions to their followers; Robert Latham of the University of California, Riverside, casts their ideology as "anarcholibertarian"." These thoughts don't seem connected well enough to be joined with a semicolon.

Devivals:

"Cusack compares the style of the services to Pentecostal revivalism" Can we find a good link for "Pentecostal revivalism"?

Publishing:

At this point in the article, it occurred to me that the group's beliefs might be slightly more comprehensible if the Instructions and Publishing sections were integrated into the Beliefs section. Maybe.