Talk:David Icke/GA2

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

Reviewer: Tris2000 (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Mabeenot (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article and will be pasting here my initial comments by the end of this week. This is quite a complex article, which has already been through one nomination process, so I will be checking to see whether recommendations were followed, as well as suggest some improvements of my own if applicable. --Tris2000 (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a far greater job than I anticipated. A lot of careful reading over the weekend. I probably won't have the initial comments by the end of this week as promised earlier, but I'll spend a good week on it. A fascinating article (and on the whole well written) about a fascinating individual, and excited about this one. --Tris2000 (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay with this; I've just ordered a couple of David Icke DVDs which I would like to watch first. The article reviewer. --Tris2000 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

HELP - I've never started something like this and then haven't finished it, but my life has been turned upside down since I decided to work on this article - since then my wife has divorced me, if that puts it into context. My sincere apologies. If anyone can help me take on the mantle that would be great. This is a truly good article, and with some minor tweaking I think it's almost there. My apologies for the delay, but suddenly I have more important things to worry about. Sorry guys. --Tris2000 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

B'nai Brith paragraph in the lede
The entire fourth paragraph of the intro is dedicated to B'nai Brith's POV that when Icke says "reptilian" he really means "Jews". I have only ever seen this view put forward by B'nai Brith affiliated organisations, most others report on Icke do not mention this and seem to take "repilitans" or "shape shifting aliens" on face value, for instance Blair, the Queen, Bush, Boxcar Willie aren't Jewish. Is this undue weight to an obscure POV? - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You posted this on the article talk page too, so I've responded there. In brief, this is not a minority POV about him&mdash;on the contrary, it's a view expressed by several academics and mainstream journalists&mdash;which is why it's in the lead. See the section of the article on the anti-Semitism controversy for more details, and for the sources. SlimVirgin  01:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, anyone who has looked closely at Davids comments on Reptilian Shape-shifters, will tell you he does NOT mean Jewish people, and never did. However, the obvious animosity that has grown between David and Jewish activists has led him into such realms as 'defining' Zionism etc. Again, if he was not misunderstood at first by Jewish activists he probably would never have become interested in them or Israel. Like Yorkshiriarian says, since when has the Queen, Mr Blair, George Bush, been Jewish? One of Davids main theories is that Reptilians need to contantly drink blood to remain Human Looking. If they were Jewish, they would not need to drink blood, they are already Human.Johnwrd (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

New Reviewer
Since this article is the oldest in the GAN backlog and the previous reviewer could not finish the review, I'll take a swing at it. My comments should be finished within the next couple days. -Mabeenot (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been more than two weeks. Any progress? Gabbe (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've actually had this done for a while, I just was waiting for another editor's opinion on one thing before posting. Good job locating my review and fixing some things in advance. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment
The previous GA reassessment focused on the need to improve sourcing and rewrite parts of the article. After reading through the article, it appears that the previous concerns have been addressed and the addition of new content has improved the article as well.

1. Well-written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * ✅ Very well written and interesting. Word-choice occasionally led to some "flirts" with POV troubles, but that might just be a stylistic preference on my part.
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 * ✅ Yes, although the lead is a little long. Could use some trimming.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 * ✅ All information seems to be well sourced with notes.
 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
 * ✅ Yes, all functional
 * (c) it contains no original research
 * ✅ Associates all opinions with their respective authors

3. Broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * ✅ Very thorough coverage. I had never heard of Icke prior to reading this article. Now I have a very strong picture of him and his views. However, the article may be a little long for the average reader.
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
 * ✅ Focused on Icke, his ideas, and reception/controversies. However, the details about his father saving the crew of an aircraft seem unnecessary since the article does not directly state how those actions contributed to Icke's development as a child.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * ✅ It can be difficult to keep a neutral tone for such a controversial figure, but this article does a good job. I tweaked the few instances where POV might have been apparent.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * ✅ No edit wars or major disruptions

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * ✅ Yes
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * ✅ Yes

Result: Pass

-Mabeenot (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)