Talk:Néo-Phare/GA1
Latest comment: 1 hour ago by PARAKANYAA in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 17:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 00:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment just a warning I am having a very bad time in my real life right now so my responses to address issues in this article maybe be slower than typical for me. Will still attempt to address in a timely manner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Additional note: Someone added an authorlink to Loren Coleman: we do not have an article on the author Loren Coleman, and it is not the cryptozoologist. Loren Coleman as cited in this article is, iirc, a researcher into suicide. I have removed this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Was apparently the same guy! Cryptozoologist and suicide researcher. Well that is unique. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. Take as much time as you need. Life comes first. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Additional note: Someone added an authorlink to Loren Coleman: we do not have an article on the author Loren Coleman, and it is not the cryptozoologist. Loren Coleman as cited in this article is, iirc, a researcher into suicide. I have removed this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I will be leaving comments and making copy edits as I review the article. If you disagree with any of the copy edits, please feel free to leave a note below and we can discuss them. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Comments
- In the history and beliefs section, provide dates if you can. When did he work for France-Telecom, get his degree, and become a hitchhiker?
- No source says when. Some sources specify he used to be a salesman for France-Telecom, but none mention when/where he got his degree. For context this is more or less every single source that has been written on the topic (except one website mentions something may have been written about it in the Fortean Times which alas, I could not find). The only date mentioned in the sources are when he was born, when he moved to Argentina, and when he joined Ouest-Phare.
- Another source described him as a "former hitchhiker". – Specify who this other source is.
- did
- He was an obscure writer. – This needs more context. It seems kind of thrown into the middle of the paragraph there.
- i moved this around into a different sentence where it fits better
- After Bougenec's death, Mussy formed a schismatic group, on the grounds that he considered the members of Phare-Ouest to be too religiously rigid "like the Pharisees"; though another source attributes this to both internal conflicts and his ambition. – Both of these claims need attribution.
- did
- Two members of this group, a couple, had both been members of Phare-Ouest for seven years before Mussy joined, and went with him in the schism. – Why is this important (cf. WP:DUE)?
- This is important because it's the same couple as later who allegedly attempted suicide: early on in my writing of the article I did not have their names censored so this was clearer. Their names are freely available in many of the sources, but Palmer 2011 decided to give them fake names (though she didn't in her 2008 work on the same topic), so this sentence now makes less sense. I'm unsure what I should do here; I feel it's relevant when they joined. But unlike Trossais they are still alive, so...
- I think the issue is that you have a combined "History and beliefs" section. These sections should be separate. Additionally, the information about the couple and Trossais should be in the "Suicide and alleged attempts" section. That would make for a more coherent chronological narrative and allow the history section to focus on a broader view of the group's history.
- I think that's a fair point, but I'm not sure if there's enough information on their beliefs to maintain its own section, given their brief existence and how their beliefs evolved over time, I'm not sure if they're necessarily easy to extract from each other. Originally the section was simply named "history" but I covered the evolution of their beliefs enough that I felt it was warranted, though I suppose it could be changed back. Additionally, given their legacy from Bougenec, the belief systems of that group somewhat naturally flow into the history. You have a point with the information on the couple and Trossais belonging in the other section so I will think on how to handle that (probably will move it down).
- I moved the content about the couple down, where it now makes sense in context. I am undecided on the location of the information about Trossais because I feel it makes slightly more sense to establish this before.
- I think the issue is that you have a combined "History and beliefs" section. These sections should be separate. Additionally, the information about the couple and Trossais should be in the "Suicide and alleged attempts" section. That would make for a more coherent chronological narrative and allow the history section to focus on a broader view of the group's history.
- This is important because it's the same couple as later who allegedly attempted suicide: early on in my writing of the article I did not have their names censored so this was clearer. Their names are freely available in many of the sources, but Palmer 2011 decided to give them fake names (though she didn't in her 2008 work on the same topic), so this sentence now makes less sense. I'm unsure what I should do here; I feel it's relevant when they joined. But unlike Trossais they are still alive, so...
- They attempted to rebuild a life after an apocalypse that would be in line with the group's beliefs. – I'm not sure what this means.
- I tried to rephrase it. Basically, the world will end and the group's mission was to rebuild the world after that according to their view
- The group lived cooperatively but not communally. – What's the distinction between the two?
- hard to explain here given the sourcing, but i added a bit to make it clearer. a cooperative is different from a commune/Intentional community, for example
- Does the sourcing say what kind of cooperative acts they engaged in? If so, specify those acts instead of using labels and attempting to draw a distinction based on the sources.
- it says they lived together but kept working jobs (implied to be outside the group) and kept separate bank accounts.
- Does the sourcing say what kind of cooperative acts they engaged in? If so, specify those acts instead of using labels and attempting to draw a distinction based on the sources.
- hard to explain here given the sourcing, but i added a bit to make it clearer. a cooperative is different from a commune/Intentional community, for example
- a 29-year-old gym instructor – When is this? 2001 when the group was formed? Please clarify.
- Hm, it's when he died. I agree that his age might be different then, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Should I remove his age entirely?
- Yes.
- did that
- Yes.
- Hm, it's when he died. I agree that his age might be different then, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Should I remove his age entirely?
- One commentator claimed this led to his abuse within the movement; however, Judas was actually viewed positively within their theology, as the "closest, most-beloved disciple" of Jesus, so this may not have been inherently stigmatizing. – The "commentator" and the portion after the semicolon both need attribution and should not be in wikivoice.
- did
- Source review and spot checks
- To come.
- Copy edits
- Discuss here.