| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I just admitted defeat for a while waiting for my academic institution to re-subscribe to Newsbank in the mean time I would like someone independent outside of the usuals at WP:NRM and User:Cirt to look at the the article and hopefully remove see about giving it a good look over. I hope to get rid of the "primary sources" "refimprove" and The "neutrality" tags out of there. As i feel it has substantially improved since i really started around here [1]. Weaponbb7 (talk) 4:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Thanks, Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I found this article to be quite interesting, and it's clear that a lot of research and thought have gone into it. Writing about controversial subjects without taking sides or appearing to take sides can be quite difficult. I have a couple of suggestions about point-of-view, and I'm glad you are taking steps to make the article as neutral as possible. PR is generally meant for articles that have no major clean-up tags. Dealing with the issues mentioned in the tags would be the first order of business, as you have noted in your request above. Here are a few more ideas:
I felt PR was appropriate as a Ealier request on NRM project failed to get any repsonses. I am glad you found it interesting as i find it is interesting. I am kinda doing this article as a litature review for my own work wish i hope publish in the next few years on them thus. My own studying of the group has made me weary of unintentional WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOR violations on my part (which I feared happened in Doctrine/beliefs but intend to fix since a recent journal article has become available as secondary source ). I also wanted to get an outside view on wether those issues have been satisifed since the original tagging of the article with those issues. As i think think it is best to always have third parties remove such tagsWeaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than an introductory paragraph. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.
- Can do Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The lead should not include anything important that is not mentioned in the main text. The location of the Spriggs' house, for example, should appear in the first paragraph of the History section and not just in the lead.
Oh good point Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- "in Dalton and Trenton, Georgia, Mentone, Alabama, and Dayton, Tennessee." - It's not clear from this where each city is. Suggestion: "in Dalton and Trenton, both in the U.S. state of Georgia, and in Mentone, Alabama, and Dayton, Tennessee." Foreign readers may get lost otherwise.
- good point Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- "A series of deprogrammings" - This probably should be linked or explained to readers who may not know what "deprogrammings" refers to. I'd suggest looking for other jargon or special terms in the article that a foreigner or anyone outside the Judeo-Christian tradition might not understand. For example, a reference to a Bible verse or chapter may mean little or nothing to a non-Christian unless it is explained in some way.
- Hmm metaphysical stuff is always hard to explain without Jargon but i follow Will work to improve. Its a difficult rewrite but seems feasible enough. I thought the wikilink for Deprograming would be enough for that. I am not sure how to explain that in text may be a <ref name= "deprograming"="note"/>
- In the "History" section, a phrase says, "assisted by one of the Chattanooga Police Department's detectives in falsifying charges" - This is the sort of claim that I'd be reluctant to publish without the support of more than one reliable source. Suppose the single source is wrong even if reliable per WP:RS. If that is the case, then the Chattanooga Police Department has been unfairly blamed in a Wikipedia article. I'd suggest beefing up the support or deleting the claim. Later in the article, a sentence says, "Eddie Wiseman's public defender, Jean Swantko, who had been present during the raid, later joined and married Wiseman." This sets off the WP:COI (conflict of interest) gongs. The single source for the police detective claim is an article by Swantko
- I was aware of the possible problems with the source thus i made not within text statement of her marriage to Wiseman. (as suggested by another member of WP:NRM Workgroup). That user felt that PR Article in a respectable peer reviewed journal met necessary RS qualifications of extraordinary sources for extraordinary claims despite the possible COI. A revised and expanded version was also published by Oxford University Press by Swantko neither are exsactly exposes in Freedom Magazine so i am comfortable. Both Articles are cited as example within relevant Alternative/Minority Religion literature. I'll cite to both and make sure the quote is accurate to what the source says. I'll also Double check contemporary sources to the event as i think there is one but unsure that mentions the heroic assistance of Chattanoogan-PD. If I am mistaken on the existence of such a seconday source will take it up at RSN for wider consensus. However otherwise I am pretty comfortable with leaving as is once i add the second source in since the two have been cited in later articles on the group and Relevant literature. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the "Child labor" subsection, the lightbulb and wheeelbarrow claim seems fairly spectacular, but the reliable source supports it carefully. I would suggest correcting the citation to reflect the article's complete title: "Healing Buildings and Healing Souls in the Catskills". This may seem like a trifling difference, but I'd be especially careful with the little details in an article dealing so heavily with controversy.
Fixed I was surprised as well about that when researching. I think i had a 2001 source for it as well somewhere.
- The Manual of Style (WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists) recommends turning lists into straight prose where feasible. I'd suggest doing this with the lists in the "Outreaches and businesses" section. It would probably be helpful to readers if the list items were more fully explained. What is Common Wealth for example?
good pointWeaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Eleven claims (citation 60) are sourced to Parchment Press or the Twelve Tribes website. I'd suggest making sure that the source in each case does not violate the conflict-of-interest guidelines and is actually reliable per WP:RS. It might meet the guidelines for some kinds of information but not others. Also, the dead url needs to be replaced by a live one or fixed in some other way.
Hmm alot of deadlinks on the Newsbank stuff.... was unaware of that they were stable links when i first cited them. Also the most recent work by palmer exapands on the their beleifs so alot of the doctorine stuff will be filled in with Secondary sources in the next rewrite. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- File:Island Pond raid.jpg is a scan of an image from a 2009 publication. What makes it free to use and re-use without violating U.S. copyright law?
- aww I need to go back and rearrange the Fair-use as i now understand how it works better Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010
(UTC)
Fixed with proper Fair use rationales Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)