Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 09:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer (the GA Bot doesn't notify nominators when I start a review because of this) - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting an independent copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.

Nominators and interested users are free to response however they wish - inserting responses directly under each point I make is probably the best way, but please do whatever suits you. The thing that can get problematic is if someone other than me ticks off my query points as done and/or crosses out my text. If you have done something, please say so under my query, but allow me to check and make the decision as to if it is done or not - that way I know what I have checked and what I haven't. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?

   A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article is stable. SilkTork (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Article seems stable because fixing it is a daunting project. It has been on the list for a while but the article is enormous, full of fluff, and there are many instances of overlapping content with other articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology#Overlapping and duplicate histories, CONTENTFORKs for just the tip of the CF-iceberg. Grorp (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Stable means that there are no edit wars, or significant developments taking place that cause the article to constantly change, which would be confusing for a reader. Stable is what an article should be to be promoted to GA. SilkTork (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• There is a reference section [using the awkward short cite method - I'll give my traditional gripe that this is the internet, so the long cite method is more appropriate and more user friendly for readers and reviewers. Gripe over! ;-)] SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "short cite method" unless you mean the template:SFN usage. If you would prefer the style I used with Malko, I can change over Wallis (6), Atack (55), Miller (127), and any of the others if they're available at OpenLibrary (verifying page numbers as I go). Grorp (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CITESHORT. It's not a GA issue if short or long cites are used - both are permitted. The short cite method is what is generally used in books as it saves space on the page. It's a form of shorthand. We don't need it on the Wikipedia as there isn't the need to save page space (it's all the same page after all, and all the cite material is tucked below the article, out of sight of the reader). The tricky thing with the short cite method is that page number info and book info are in two different places, which means doing a quick check is less easy. Some editors argue that using the short cite template makes it easier for editing, and that is true; however, I kind of feel that we should be aiming to make Wikipedia easier for the readers rather than the editors. Anyway, it's not a GA issue - it's just my personal moan which I tend to do each time I do a GA review which uses short cites. SilkTork (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• All the images in the article contain a suitable copyright tag, mainly public domain - those tags has been assumed to be correct. SilkTork (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• The copyvios picked up by Earwig's tool have been examined, and all are instances of using quotes. SilkTork (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• I see no evidence of original research. SilkTork (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• On the whole, though there is a slight weight toward the controversies in Hubbard's life, the article is fairly neutral. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Meets enough aspects of MoS for GA SilkTork (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Query

• I wonder if all the images are pertinent. Do we need, for example, three illustrations of his work? SilkTork (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed 1 of the 3 pulp images, 3 decoration-only images, and moved 3 to be next to their associated content. Grorp (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Prose is clear and readable, though just holding up the pass for a while because of the preponderance of short paragraphs which tend to inhibit flow of reading, and make the article look scruffy. SilkTork (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Article is richly cited, though there is a large reliance on Miller's book, which I understand is somewhat controversial. Spot checks not done yet, though I have noted one citation needed tag in Controversies and crises section. SilkTork (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Citation-needed tag is now solved. Not sure why you think Miller is controversial. Grorp (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I took the info that the book is controversial from our article on the book: Bare-faced Messiah, which include quotes like "a scumbag book ... full of bullshit" and "like a life of Christ [written] by Judas Iscariot." And there are criticism of Miller's accuracy, such as "Melton disputes Miller's assertion that Hubbard was lying about his military career", and "Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII, e.g., have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show". Given that it is regarded as the most significant book on Hubbard, it is entirely right and proper that it should be used. My quibble is that of the sources used to write the article around a third are from Bare-faced Messiah, which has been seen in some quarters as critical of Hubbard, so I'm just wondering what that may say about the balance and neutrality of our article. What we need to ensure is that where the article is in Wiki voice it has facts rather than arguments and persuasions; and that where we do have arguments and persuasions, that these are attributed to sources, and that where appropriate there is a balancing argument, while also bearing in mind due weight. SilkTork (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

* Earwig's copyvio tool is in the red, though from a glance, it appears to be flashing up quotes rather than text. Will just need to spend a little more time on looking into this area before passing. SilkTork (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have nominated File:Gerryarmstrong-2004-07-05.jpg for deletion as it appears to be a copyright violation. My intention was to crop the image to remove unwanted and distracting space, then noticed that there are copyright issues. My suggestion would be to remove the image until the status of the image is established on Commons. SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• The start of Hubbard's literary career is given in First marriage and early literary career, but is then not covered in detail, apart from simple mentions by name of key novels, such as To the Stars (novel). The later literary career is not easy to pick out from the text, and consideration could be given to providing a section which gives an overview. SilkTork (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Focus. Details in various sections could be trimmed, especially those sections, such as Dianetics and Rise of Scientology, where we already have detailed articles. SilkTork (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Fail

General comments

• "After moving to Kalispell, Montana, they settled in Helena in 1913." More clarity required. If there is little more information on the move to Kalispell, perhaps skip it. "By 1913 the family had moved to and settled in Helena, Montana. SilkTork (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Though Christensen writes in brief, McDowell recounts more fully. McDowell might also answer your question about the Navy. Christensen writes, "When young Hubbard was two years old, he moved with his family to a ranch outside of Kalispell, Montana, and later to the state's capital, Helena. ... In 1923, at the age of twelve, Hubbard moved with his parents to Seattle, because his father was stationed at a local naval base." McDowell writes, "L. Ron Hubbard was born on March 13, 1911, in Tilden, Nebraska. He was the son of Harry Hubbard, a naval officer, and his wife, Ledora May Hubbard. Six months after his birth, the family relocated to Durant, Oklahoma. Shortly thereafter, they moved again, this time to Kalispell, Montana. They remained in Montana for about five years. Ron and his mother later settled in Helena, Montana, when his father was called away by the Navy. ... From 1918 to 1921, the Hubbard family moved from Montana to California, first living in San Diego and later Oakland. In 1922, they moved to Puget Sound ... In October 1923, Hubbard’s father received orders to Washington, D.C. The family traveled there via the Panama Canal, aboard the USS Ulysses S. Grant." Grorp (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hubbard's father left the navy then returned. Do we know what he did between times? Or why the family moved to Montana? SilkTork (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I might suppose that the CofS hagiographical timeline (via McDowell; see above) was obtained because of Navy records of the father. What he did between commissions may not have been written down anywhere. Grorp (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• As part of the move to improve flow in the text, it would be helpful to vary the use of time. In Early life we have consecutive paragraphs starting: "In 1925", "In April 1927", "In September 1927", "Between October and December 1928", "In September 1929". The impression given is of a series of notes or bullet points toward an essay rather than the finished article. SilkTork (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I should be able to finish the first stage of the review in a few more days. SilkTork (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry for delay on this. I have been kept busy with other stuff on and off Wiki. I intend to be fully engaged on this next week, and I'm looking forward to finishing off the review. SilkTork (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Again, sorry for delay. Things have been busier this week than anticipated (including two more ArbCom requests), but I have managed to clear away my other outstanding GA review, so with any spare time I have for Wikipedia I can focus on finishing this review, and seeing where we are. SilkTork (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• "In the late 1970s, two men began to assemble a picture of Hubbard's life.". Which two men? There are six men mentioned in the section: Shannon, Armstrong, Garrison, and Miller, Corydon, and Arack (though their books were published in the 80s). The focus of the section appears to be on Armstrong and later Miller. And there are links to Armstrong cases, Bare-faced Messiah, L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman? , and A Piece of Blue Sky. The start of the section gives us some detailed information about Shannon - where he lived, how he got involved, etc, but that info doesn't go anywhere, and Shannon is not mentioned in either Armstrong cases or Gerry Armstrong (activist) which are assumed to be more detailed articles on the topic. It is not clear what the intent of the section is, especially as I don't see from the information given that Armstrong wrote a biography - his role appears to be that of archivist rather than biographer. Garrison "wrote a "warts and all" biography", but we get no other information on that. The section needs tightening to make clear what information is being given here, and why. SilkTork (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I made some changes that should address this. Grorp (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• "best known for having founded the Church of Scientology" - is this accurate? What is the difference between the Church of Scientology and Scientology itself? Later in the lead it says "he subsequently founded Scientology". Is he most known for founding Scientology or for founding the Church? SilkTork (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Both, but Scientology first and foremost. I made an edit to clarify. Note that the entire lead section is far too long and bloated with what I consider trivia and even a few mistakes. Grorp (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• The Early life section contains too many short paragraphs - this inhibits flow of reading, and looks unprofessional. SilkTork (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• "The two were married on April 13". This is unsourced, and it seems very quick that they would meet in Feb, and be married with a child by early April. This source (an interview with the wife) gives the marriage as September: [1]. SilkTork (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Read Miller page 61 [2]. The source you mention is a transcript from a recorded FBI interview done 30 years after the marriage. Miller had Armstrong's archival documents, which might well have included the marriage certificate or newspaper announcement. Miller mentions the timeline on page 61. Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I have found the document - difficult to read as the reverse text bleeds through, but the date of 13 April 1933 appears to be true: [3], and this is confirmed by a court document: [4], though she was using the name Louise not Margaret. In the court document she is using the surname Morton, which just adds to the confusion. SilkTork (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• "She was already pregnant when they married, but had a miscarriage shortly afterwards" - how certain is this information? If it is uncertain, then probably best to remove it. I can't access the source, and a quick search doesn't reveal other sources giving that information. SilkTork (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

See Miller pg 61. You can 'borrow' the book online at this OpenLibrary link. Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Is it "Swevely" or "Swavely"? SilkTork (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Swavely. I fixed it. Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• "later recalled it discussed the "one command": to survive" - This is not clear. SilkTork (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I reworked that. Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• The structure of the article in which Hubbard's life story is cut into sections such as Dianetics and Rise of Scientology makes it difficult to get an overview of his life. Within the Dianetics section, for example, we get information about his second marriage and his affair and then his third marriage. Meanwhile, how much do we need on Dianetics and the history of its development in this article on Hubbard, when we have History of Dianetics and Dianetics? The difficulty, of course, is deciding what information belongs where, and how to do an appropriate summary of History of Dianetics and Dianetics in this article. Generally, as a rule of thumb, where article A is summarised in article B, the lead section of article A can be used as the basis for the summary in Article B. SilkTork (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, lots of content forks. Four months ago I wrote about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology § Overlapping and duplicate histories, CONTENTFORKs. I don't know if my then-suggestion is the best, but I bring it up to show it's a BIG edit project and not something that could be tackled for this GA process. No one has even begun to tackle it; I sure am not ready to do so, either. And I just re-read it; trimming up the L. Ron Hubbard article is the last step in the process (#7). Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The more I look at this, the more unclear it becomes. My feeling is that a decent copy-edit of this article, and a restructuring and trimming, will at least help towards seeing what is needed. I have little confidence that this will become a GA article in the next few weeks, but any work done in the right direction will be helpful. Though, given the confusion of the information, I do feel that what is really needed is a careful reading (and preferably a careful study) of available sources rather than a hasty reshuffling of existing information, some of which may be dubious. For example, I have just made two edits in the article - in the main source (Miller) for Hubbard meeting Grubb, the source says that Hubbard had met Grubb before he left for Puerto Rico (Oct 1932), so he did not first meet her in Feb 1933. And while Miller, in the manner of a journalist rather than an academic, implies that Grubb was pregnant when they married, we don't actually know that - we don't have the date of the miscarriage, nor how far along the pregnancy was. A little more care rather than haste is needed. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• User:Feoffer, are the sub-sections temporary as you work out the shape and contents? Such short sections are discouraged, see MOS:OVERSECTION, as they inhibit flow and readability. Currently the article is looking like a series of notes toward an article rather than an article with potential to be GA. SilkTork (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Excellent pointer, to get to GA, we shouldn't have 1-2 para sections. The Caribbean trips section needs a voice of significance connecting them to Hubbard's future. The first marriage section need more details about timeline relationship, Early claims about Clear needs a lot more of the extravagant claims made in print and media. Prior musing about starting a religion section should be merged with other similar tales. In short, yes -- lots of work still to do :) Feoffer (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by llywrch

(Note: These are not made as an official reviewer for GA, but include suggestions for improvement.)

First, I'd like to congratulate all involved for their bravery. Seriously. In the past, all Hubbard/Scientology articles have been the battlegrounds involving advocates (if not members) of the Church of Scientology, who will do anything to ensure any article on this topic is nothing less than sterling positive accounts favorable to their POV. There have been numerous ArbCom cases concerning editing articles on this subject, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, & the cases linked there. And they have been known in the past to harass both online & in person anyone openly critical of Scientology. Only the fact that the CoS has yet to take notice of this nomination suggests that they may not be as effective in harassing as they have been known to be.

That said, here are some general suggestions for improving the article.

• First, can a better photo of Hubbard be found? I am no fan of the man (much the opposite), but that is a very unflattering photo. Some might even say unfair. (FWIW, I had a look at Commons, & failed to find a better.)
• I'm dubious about the assertion that Hubbard only earned $100 from his pulp fiction career. Being a pulp writer in the 1930s was definitely not a path to riches, but he did write more than 6 stories over those years. L. Sprague DeCamp in his Science-Fiction Handbook has a rather nice & succinct paragraph summarizing Hubbard's pre-Scientology writing career that I can provide if requested.
• The section "Scientology Biographies" definitely needs copy editing. The paragraphs have a repetitious pattern, e.g. beginning more often than not "Scientology accounts say". Creating a bit of variety would definitely make this section more readable.

I hope these comments prove helpful. -- llywrch (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a note to say Llywrch is certainly right about Hubbard's earnings; he was a prolific and popular writer. I can probably dig detals out of Alec Nevala-Lee's Astounding, which covers his pulp career, if needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: If you have an actual copy of Astounding by ANL, then Feoffer was looking for a quote that I know is in Astounding but which google books omitted to show me the exact page. It's under Talk:L. Ron Hubbard#To-do list the one about excalibur. I'm pretty sure he's looking for a citation for the letter in L. Ron Hubbard which includes the line "Don’t know why I suddenly got the nerve to go into this again and let it loose". Grorp (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that quote is not in that book. I checked with an online copy as well, searching for Excalibur. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Grorp: Forgot to check for the other quote. It's there, p. 238 of ANL. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks! I added it to the article. [5] Grorp (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Llywrch: The problem with getting a better photo is that all the photos are copyrighted by Scientology and they are quirky about complaining about the use of their photos. Grorp (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Since I figure it will be the Scientologists who will complain loudest about that picture (I merely asked if a better one could be found; if none is available, well, it is what it is), that will be the proper response: if they don't like it, then provide a CC BY-SA 4.0 photo. All that is needed is a headshot. -- llywrch (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Pass/Hold/Fail

• On hold. There is information contained in the article, though the organisation and presentation make reading more difficult than it could be. The main areas needing attention are that the article would benefit from a serious copy-edit - tighten the sections, trimming waste and tidying up presentation. This will greatly aid readability. The article would also benefit from a rethink on the way it is organised. A section on Hubbard's life, giving an overview, and placing events in context, could come first, followed by sections giving summary introductions to the major incidents in his life - his science fiction, his military career, Dianetics, Scientology, etc, with links to articles on those topics giving more detailed information, followed by sections on his personal life (marriages and affairs and children - though this could be included in the Life and career section), and Legacy, and Biographies. At the very least, the article would benefit from a reduction in detail in several sections.

I'm putting on hold for the nominal seven days, though the amount of work needed would take longer than that. I am always prepared to keep a review open while substantial work is being done. And I'm also willing to help out. My recommendation, however, is that this is a task that will require thought and time, and unless there are several editors willing to come in and work on this, that it might be better to close this GAN in order to allow the work to be done at a more considered pace, and then re-nominate when the article has improved. SilkTork (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't planned on spending much time with this GA process as I'd considered the GA request to be very premature. I have participated because this is on my watchlist and I like to keep apprised of changes, and double check them to make sure they're accurate (or accurate enough). There are few other editors who have shown any interest in the Scientology topic area, and that interest isn't accompanied by lots of editing in the area. So that leaves mainly me, currently, and with my own long list of things I want to work on (which doesn't include the Hubbard article) I'm really not volunteering to do the massive amount of work that I think this article really needs. To give you an idea of the scope of work that probably needs to be done, read (or skim) Talk:Scientology § Article size and related article title /scope challenges. Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Grorp for all you've done, I'm just now seeing how much actionable feedback we now have on how to improve the article. I'll pull up my sleeves and get to it! Feoffer (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the priorities is trimming text that is not about Hubbard - for example, the following is about Dianetics rather than Hubbard:

Dianetics was an immediate commercial success and sparked what Martin Gardner calls "a nationwide cult of incredible proportions".[119] By August 1950, Hubbard's book had sold 55,000 copies, was selling at the rate of 4,000 a week and was being translated into French, German and Japanese. Five hundred Dianetic auditing groups had been set up across the United States.[120]

Dianetics was poorly received by the press and the scientific and medical professions.[120] The American Psychological Association criticized Hubbard's claims as "not supported by empirical evidence".[121] Scientific American said that Hubbard's book contained "more promises and less evidence per page than any publication since the invention of printing",[122] while The New Republic called it a "bold and immodest mixture of complete nonsense and perfectly reasonable common sense, taken from long acknowledged findings and disguised and distorted by a crazy, newly invented terminology".[123] Some of Hubbard's fellow science fiction writers also criticized it; Isaac Asimov considered it "gibberish"[37] while Jack Williamson called it "a lunatic revision of Freudian psychology".[124]

Several famous individuals became involved with Dianetics. Aldous Huxley received auditing from Hubbard;[125] the poet Jean Toomer[126] and the science fiction writers Theodore Sturgeon[127] and A. E. van Vogt became trained Dianetics auditors. Vogt temporarily abandoned writing and became the head of the newly established Los Angeles branch of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. Other branches were established in New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Honolulu.[128][129] Psychologist and systems theorist William T. Powers, also prolific as a science fiction writer, was another early advocate[130][131] and researcher connected with the Chicago branch.[132]

Although Dianetics was not cheap, a great many people were nonetheless willing to pay; van Vogt later recalled "doing little but tear open envelopes and pull out $500 checks from people who wanted to take an auditor's course".[128] Financial controls were lax. Hubbard himself took large sums with no explanation of what he was doing with it. On one occasion, van Vogt saw Hubbard taking a lump sum of $56,000 (equivalent to $680,000 in 2022) out of the Los Angeles Foundation's proceeds.[128] One of Hubbard's employees, Helen O'Brien, commented that at the Elizabeth, N.J. branch of the Foundation, the books showed that "a month's income of $90,000 is listed, with only $20,000 accounted for".[133]

This can be removed or at least summarised in one or two sentences. SilkTork (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep! You see exactly where I was going. Feoffer (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• I love your enthusiasm and energy Feoffer, and am quite prepared to keep this GA open for longer. SilkTork (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for your kind words! I'm actually apologetic that I wasn't a bigger part of the GA process before now. Not sure how it happened but I somehow hadn't followed / accidentally unfollowed the GA discussion until you pinged me. I'm happy to work on it! Feoffer (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• I will collapse the review and do a fresh one at some point as so much has changed. Meantime I've just had a quick look at progress, and have some general comments to make.
  • Section headers should not refer back to the subject. See MOS:NOBACKREF. I fixed this once, but it has returned. So it should be "Before Dianetics (1911-1950)" not "Hubbard before Dianetics (1911-1950)", etc.
  • What is the purpose of the "Overview" section? It appears to be the sort of summary of Hubbard's life that could appear in the lead (in an abbreviated form). If it's intended to be a biography section separate from the Dianetics/Scientology, military career, and writing career, then it falls short. As it stands it sort of falls between the two stools of lead and biography.
  • A number of images and media items are scattered through the article, and I'm wondering the benefit of a number of them. Many of them appear to be more decorative than helpful. The Internal Revenue Service building in Washington image, for example, doesn't appear to serve any purpose, and - especially given the caption ("one of the targets of Hubbard's "Snow White Program") - could be slightly misleading. Was it the building that Hubbard targeted or unfavourable records about Scientology? There are more pertinent Snow White images and media in Commons.
  • There are still too many short sub-sections and short paragraphs, which makes this look like a work in progress.
  • There is too much trivial or barely relevant information, such as the two sentence paragraph on the death of Aleister Crowley.
  • Article would benefit from a close reading to remove unnecessary detail, and to reduce the amount and length of the quotes. SilkTork (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Great feedback as always.

  • I got Hubbard's name out of the section headings
  • The overview is currently written is sort of half-lead half-bio, isn't it? For people with complex biographies, an overview can sometimes be helpful, especially until I can split the detailed content off in to sub-articles and replace it with summaries. I definitely know how to abbreviate it into a new lead, but what would we want added to it if it were to embody your idea of a "bio aside from Dianetics/Scientology, military career, and writing"?
  • This is tough article to find images for, we only have two free images of Hubbard. I agree the IRS image provided nothing, I replaced it with the building that was raided by the FBI. I also cut the decorative image of Corfu.
  • I would agree that the post 1953 material is still very much a work in progress with sections that are too short. I think the sectionation of "Before Dianetics" and "In Dianetics Era" might be okay, see if you agree.
  • definitely too much trivia, detail, and quotes. I've tackled most of the long quotations but there's still a lot of to do. Feoffer (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm busy off-Wiki at the moment, and then going to France for family business, so will not be keeping on eye on this. I will check back early next month (September), and make a decision then as to if it is still productive to keep this GAN open. I hope you manage to push this in the right direction. Good luck! SilkTork (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm back from my break. I've had a look at the article and I can see changes have been made, though it seems that, realistically, we are not yet at the point where the article meets GA criteria. There is more shape to the article, and more focus in certain areas, though it is still somewhat cluttered and unclear. The right side of the article is crammed with images, some of which are tangential - and this reminds me of the situation at the start of the review. I think this is a difficult subject to find the right approach in how to deal with Hubbard the man, given the complexity of his life. I feel it would benefit from a period of research, followed by discussion as to how best to shape the article, and then writing it up. It may even be worth considering writing it up on a draft page. Starting again from scratch can be beneficial at times. Getting more people involved will also help. I'll close this review now. A new nomination can be made when there is consensus among contributors that the article does meet GA criteria. Well done to everyone who has worked on this, and good luck moving forward. SilkTork (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.