Talk:Marshall Applewhite/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 02:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
"He was a baritone singer, and enjoyed spirituals and Handel's music." -> I'd suggest "and the music of Handel" here, perhaps even "the works of Handel". I'm not sure why but I just don't like the flow of that sentence as is.
I went back and forth a few times on that sentence last week, I took your suggestion here. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"where he operated a deli" -> I use "deli" in everyday speech (alarmingly, it probably is every day), but I'm wondering if it should be "delicatessen" here. Thoughts?
That didn't occur to me, but our article uses Delicatessen so I guess it's best to go with that. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"their relationship was non-sexual" -> "their relationship was not a sexual one".
Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"further psychological breakdowns" -> given that we're talking in terms of a guy who killed himself to ride a spaceship to a new body, I'm not sure "breakdowns" is best here as it implies individual, standalone breaks from a normal baseline. I think the indication is that he would have deteriorated further, rather than wigging out and then recovering again more often. Perhaps just dropping the "s" would achieve the desired shift, or replacing "breakdowns" with "deterioration" or "deviation". Again I'm open to thoughts here.
lol, that made me laugh. I used "deterioration", that sounds better regardless. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have theosophy treated as a proper noun at times and as a regular noun at others; I had always assumed it was a proper noun as part of Theosophical Society but not elsewhere.
Good catch, capitalized. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fault, just a question. How and where do you sell blood? That just seems Richard Chase levels of creepy.
Apparently, in Lakeland, Florida, and Lubbock, Texas:[1][2]. That does sound strange to me too, since a lot of people donate without compensation--at least where I live. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" Most were well versed in New Age teachings, allowing Applewhite and Nettles to persuade them easily." -> I'd use "convert" rather than "persuade" here, as the current wording implies that the individuals were more easy to manipulate in general because of their New Age leanings, rather than simply being easier to sway to Applewhite's specific teachings.
Good thinking, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"two-syllable names that ended in "ody" and had three letters in the first syllable" -> an example might be useful here.
Added a few, hard to read them without laughing. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This theme emerged in 1988, possibly in response to the lurid abduction stories that were then proliferating." -> perhaps fire in a link to abduction phenomenon?
Ok, linked. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What date were the bodies discovered?
Noted. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Grand.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
I really think that lead could be tightened up somewhat; it's a pretty big chunk of text which might make the subject seem a little hard to get into at first. I don't think it would be too difficult to take some length out of it without losing any major points—things like specifying that ads we placed in USA Today are a bit too extraneous at this stage. I think you could probably boil the pre-prison ministries down a little too, giving just a brief outline of the fact that his preachings changed as he travelled, and were vastly unsuccessful. Specific details such as numbers of converts or even the two witnesses thing could probably be stripped out there. His marriage, affair and divorce might also be worth removing as the information seems to be about two sentences' worth in the article, which makes me wonder if it's really that important up front.
Ok, cut out ~120 words or so. Hope it's a bit better now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Aye.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Don't see any problem here.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images check out. I'm wondering if it might not be a bad idea to stick the lead image inside an infobox, if only to help break up the word-brick that is that lead section. It doesn't have to be comprehensively filled out but it would add a little more aesthetically to things. Entirely up to yourself though.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Sticking this one on hold for the time being. Was quite an easy read, to be honest. I hope you manage to take it further beyond this (but not to the Next Level). GRAPPLE X 02:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has reached the state of clear, ready pass it now. Well done, Shoko. GRAPPLE X 20:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]