Wikipedia:Peer review/Church of the SubGenius/archive1

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to bring this to good and featured status eventually, so I'd like some feedback on it. It's a tricky topic to write about, so any comments would be appreciated. I'd specifically like feedback on understandability, encyclopedic tone, and flow/organization. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• File:Bobdobbs.png - Needs FUR for Church article.
• File:Ivan stang at starwood.jpg - I'm really suspicious of this one. Low resolution, no EXIF data, uploaders only contribution...
• File:Subgenius-JHVH-1-by-St-Ken.jpg - Assuming OTRS is legit, fine.
• File:June and Ward Cleaver Leave it to Beaver 1958.JPG - Solid
• File:Pee-Wee Herman (1988).jpg - Looks fair, but I wonder: is the character's image copyrighted as well, or just his films?
• File:Klaatu.JPG - Not all trailers from before 1964 are PD, so be sure to rewatch File:Day the Earth Stood Still, 1951 - trailer.ogv and check if 1) the image is indeed in the trailer and 2) there is no copyright notice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too bad about those, I've removed them for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Klaatu should be okay, but you'd have to watch the trailer (I don't have the bandwidth right now) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just added File:Robert Crumb 2010.jpg, hopefully that's fine? Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I watched the Klaatu trailer and it seems to meet both requirements, re-added. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, I checked Crumb. The image is fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• seeks to oppress Dobbs' followers - The literature or the conspiracy?
  • Tricky, tried to rephrase to avoid the problem. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Slack" is of utmost importance. [It] is never clearly defined ... [but] has been welcomed by college students and artists in the United States. - Just like deconstruction, eh? (No action required)
  • Yeah, there is some similarity there. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• a few academics - With a single reference? Does Cusack say this, or is he the only one describing it as a serious religious movement?
  • Added another cite to a positive academic for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• have been applauded by a few commentators - Who?
  • Removed as too trivial for the lead. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The Church of the SubGenius was founded by Ivan Stang and Philo Drummond, who initially established the SubGenius foundation. - Relationship between the foundation and church? Perhaps "The Church of the SubGenius was founded by Ivan Stang and Philo Drummond as the SubGenius foundation" or... Something about the current sentence reads odd. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, used your suggestion. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• that was known as the Sub Genius Pamphlet #1. - Perhaps just "known as ..."?
  • Rephrased for conciseness. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Dobbs' fictionality should be noted fairly early on in text. Otherwise "The deity gave him supernatural knowledge of the past and future, in addition to incredible power." and sentences like it sound fairly fantastic.
  • Good point... we can save the deception for the TFA blurb :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Elder gods - Capital in the original?
  • As it turns out it was. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bob" - You've been referring to him as Dobbs so far. "Bob" sound's jolting.
  • Got it, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Jehovah 1 had intended for Dobbs to lead the conspiracy, - What conspiracy?
  • You know, the one with all the conspiring (fixed). Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Double check caps on SubGenius, I fixed one occurrence of Subgenius already.
  • Ahh, I think I got the rest. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sex and the avoidance of work are taught as two key ways to gain "Slack" - I always thought sex was more "Taut" than "Slack" (no action required)
  • That's what she said :) Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Davidoff defines "Slack" as "the ability to effortlessly achieve your goals" - If it's never defined, what use is Davidoff's definition?
  • Rephrased so it's clear that it's his opinion here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The SubGenius foundation - Big or small f? Standardise.
  • Standardized. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• consists of paying a $30 fee; - as of?
  • Actually, someone pointed out to me today that it had been increased, so this is changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The church has a number of members to whom it has accorded the rank of "Pope" or "Popess". - Which means...?
  • I haven't seen an explanation, removed for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• has gained followers from outside the U.S. - Any particular countries?
  • Looking at the source again, it didn't really state support my claim very well, so I've removed it. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Stang has expressed concern about the group's possible effects on mentally ill devotees, although he believes that the church genuinely helps most adherents. - What possible effects?
  • Noted in text. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ong's Hat, The Middleman, etc. - What are these? Just a basic descriptor would be nice.
  • Ok, added. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• to repent is to "slack off" - Why no capital?
  • It's actually all caps in the source, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Church should be capitalised throughout the article.
  • Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A little UNDUE on the second commandment; any further information on the others?
  • Turns out there were some more details in the main source I used, added a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• honor of fictional characters, such as Monty Python, - Monty Python was an actual group, was it not?
  • Good catch, rephrased. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some SubGenius members put little emphasis on meetings, citing the church's focus on individualism, although the Book of the SubGenius discusses community, as well. - A little overcomplex there, four commas...
  • Down to three now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• planet X, - Big p or little p?
  • Uppercase, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• devival - Capital d or no?
  • I think lower case, standardized. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• That's it for tonight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Kirby's comments in the publishing section seem more apt for the scholarly analysis section
  • I moved some of it, left a couple sentences though. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Cusack compares the Church of the SubGenius to the Ranters... - Any reasoning (right now that paragraph is a little short)
  • Added a few details. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Anarchist writer Bob Black, a former member, has criticized the Church, alleging that it is a cult. - Why? What's the relation to ideology? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the section title and elaborated a little. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments not by Crisco :)

• Beautifully written and referenced. One small critique: the "Categorization" and "Appraisal" subsections – isn't that kind of the same thing? "Praise" and "Criticism" might make more sense. Accedie^{talk to me} 05:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be worried that would end up looking too POV (similar to what's at Wikipedia:Pro and con lists) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, that's a good point. I think the difference between this and the example given in that guideline is a list of pros and cons that are subjectively evaluated and spuriously added to either the pro and the con category ("I like feature X, this secondary source likes feature X, therefore I'll put it in the 'Pro' section for this article"), in contrast to a neutrally curated list of positive and negative reception/reactions to something like a piece of art, literature, or other by-nature subjectively received cultural items. But maybe that's just splitting hairs :) Anyway, there's probably a better logical way to split those two sections up; the distinction between "Categorization" and "Appraisal" just feels too murky to me. Accedie^{talk to me} 05:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, that is a good point, I'm not too sure what to use instead of "Categorization" though. Would "Classification" or "Labeling" work? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]