Talk:Aaron Saxton/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  06:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm placing this review on hold.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This is an interesting article. I enjoyed reading it. RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  18:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * This article has problems with "words to watch" (especially WP:CLAIM). For example, "The New Zealand Herald ... noted that information", "Saxton asserted that Scientology members deemed to be underperforming in their tasks were ordered to eat rations of beans and rice", "A response from Scientology in November 2009 asserted that Saxton's letter to Senator Xenophon was not reliable", "Hunt asserted that Saxton had banged on her car window during a protest against Scientology", "Magistrate Paul Falzon ... noted that the court would require demonstration", "Rolling Stone notes, 'Sea Org members staff all of the senior ecclesiastic positions in the church hierarchy'".  The use of these synonyms "assert" and "note" implies that the position is questionable or false, and "said" would be much better to avoid bias.  Also, per WP:FOOTERS, the references section should precede the further reading section.  While these are not major issues, I think they should be fixed before the article is promoted.  I couldn't find any other MoS problems from among the five pages to check.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * One major source used is an interview with Saxton. Most of the time, it doesn't appear that this violates WP:SELFPUB.  I am concerned about the interview being used to support the claim that "Saxton witnessed a procedure where the organisation would investigate how critics of Scientology received their information, and if this was from a Scientologist there would be an attempt to discredit the individual."  I'm not sure how reliable Saxton is in describing the actual procedure.  This appears to be using a self-published source to make a claim about a third party.  I'm open to change in this position; I just wanted to ask whether this was an appropriate use of a questionable or self-published source; perhaps the statement could be rephrased to put it under the aegis of WP:SELFPUB.  The other sources look fine. This is not strictly necessary for GA status, but one thing I would like to see with the videos is an approximate time where each statement is made, to help with WP:V.  However, this is not a criterion for GA, so I will not assess this. Citations to sources otherwise look fine, and I don't see any OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I don't see any problems here.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * This does put Scientology in a bad light, but the preponderance of the sources appear to do the same. This looks like it satisfies NPOV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Do you know of any more suitable images of Saxton or events relating to the Scientology allegations (such as hearings or parliamentary debate)?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article looks good; however, there are a couple concerns, particularly with words to watch, that prevent me from promoting the article immediately. These concerns should be easy to fix though, and so I am putting this nomination on hold for 7 days.  This review was completed on March 5, 2011, so this article will be reassessed in seven days, on March 12, 2011.
 * This article looks good; however, there are a couple concerns, particularly with words to watch, that prevent me from promoting the article immediately. These concerns should be easy to fix though, and so I am putting this nomination on hold for 7 days.  This review was completed on March 5, 2011, so this article will be reassessed in seven days, on March 12, 2011.

Of course this is not a neutral article. The number of references is extremely inflated. Most of this comes from Xenophon's speech. Is that really a reloable source? It would be better to quote the Gazette directly, then we know where all this comes from: ultimately from Saxton himself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to GA Reviewer
Thank you, RJaguar3, for doing the GA Review. I took a look at your comments as GA Reviewer, and where possible I implemented as many of your helpful suggestions as appropriate. Some of my responses to your good recommendations included: I adjusted wording, as you suggested. I removed a bit of text that you had quoted in the GA Review. I did another check but was unable to find other related free-use images. Hopefully this is now satisfactory to allow you to conclude the review. Thanks again very much for your time and your helpful recommendations as GA Reviewer - most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the new article, the article appears to satisfy the criteria, so I will pass it. RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  18:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)