Wikipedia:Peer review/Project Chanology/archive1
- 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 April 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has changed substantially (for the better) since it became a GA over a year ago. I think it is approaching the FA criteria, and would like some feedback so I can give it that final push.
Thanks, Firestorm Talk 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Needs a lot of work, quite frankly I think it is even a tad early for a peer review, but what the hey, it can't hurt to get some constructive feedback. For one thing there are a ton more sources I have yet to incorporate. Many of them are archived in the talk page archives. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments from User:TechOutsider
Interesting article. I will be peer reviewing it. I see it is a good article; I will be looking at how to get it to FA-class.
One issue in the lead. You mention "Other critics of Project Chanology's actions questioned the legality of their methods". What methods? You fail to elaborate.
In the body, you mention "groups on the Internet". The phrase is a vague. Please elaborate on the incidents when the Church clashed with such groups. Try to define groups on the Internet. Forum members? IRC Chat members? TechOutsider (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyways, back to the article after a stretch break. The article brings up the noun "Anonymous" too many times in the article. It would be helpful to the flow of the article to use other terms/phrases in place of Anonymous, possibly helping readers understand and grasp what Anonymous is. You can describe Anonymous, rather than call it by name. Same with the overuse of the word "Scientology". Try "the Church".
Some informal diction in the article, such as "Guy Fawkes was an English Catholic executed for a 1605 attempt to blow up the House of Lords."
In the "Project Chanology protests, March 15, 2008" table, you may want to change "Protesters" to "paticipation" or something along the lines of my suggestion. You first imply censorship, then state censorship. I know there are more reasons that than :), some of them mentioned in the article itself.
Hey, it's a great article, and I looked into it because I recently was involved with Scientology and Anonymous, patcipating in protests. Potentital to be FA-class as long as the vandalism is under control. I will be taking this article off the backlog; I believe my review is fairly robust. Best of luck. TechOutsider (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Some other issues in the lead. Be more specfic and elaborate on why Anon. and the Project is attacking Scientology. In the body, you mention "Scientologists are the only people who can help after a car accident". I'm wondering, can help or would help.
Per WP:MOS, avoid redundancy in the section headings; for example 2008 is used in a level 3 heading; no need to name have 2008 appear in a level 4 heading. TechOutsider (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I have fixed a few; you can fix the rest :). Well, I'll be divulging in the article some more later. TechOutsider (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Response
Thank you for these comments, will certainly try to do some more research to address these points over time as a longer term project. Cirt (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we appreciate the reviews being given. I hope to address these concerns and then give the article a push towards FA. Firestorm Talk 06:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, like I said above, I think FA is really a long ways off, and between now and that point in time we may want to consider a second peer review to reevaluate any changes before then anyways. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, FA is a ways off, but I think if we just keep pushing to improve the article, we can do it within a reasonable time frame. The subject matter is interesting, there's depth to it, and an overwhelming number of sources available. All we need is people to polish up the writing and figure out how to best use our sources (and maybe some work on NPOV issues). Firestorm Talk 06:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well... like I said, there are a ton more sources to incorporate. It could take some time. Cirt (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, FA is a ways off, but I think if we just keep pushing to improve the article, we can do it within a reasonable time frame. The subject matter is interesting, there's depth to it, and an overwhelming number of sources available. All we need is people to polish up the writing and figure out how to best use our sources (and maybe some work on NPOV issues). Firestorm Talk 06:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- llywrch comments
I always have wondered when the crackers would go after the CoS ever since I inadvertently broke thru the security of their webserver many years ago. (Let's just say it was running Windows NT 3.5 at the time, I made a typo in the URL I typed -- & the statute of limitations applies. It was really a surprising & sad thing to encounter.) Just a few points:
- Where did the name "Project Chanology" come from -- specifically the word "Chanology"?
- There are a few places where I felt the flow of the text began to wander, specifically when you start explaining who Lisa McPherson is, & recount the plot of V for Vendetta. You have links there -- no need to clutter the text with a needless explanation.
- Towards the end of the article it degrades into a list of events, rather than a unified narrative. That needs to be fixed.
Good luck with the article. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)