Talk:EST and The Forum in popular culture/GA1

GA Review

 * Note: Discussion originally archived at Talk:Est_and_The_Forum_in_popular_culture/Archive_1.

I'm going to put this on GA Hold for a few days. There is at least one formatting problem. Look at reference number 7: something is wrong. The article needs a simple copy edit. Revising of the text is advisable in several places including the first sentence: Werner Erhard and his self-improvement courses known as "est" or Erhard Seminars Training, and "The Forum" or Werner Erhard and Associates, as well as later incarnation Landmark Education with its course "Landmark Forum", have been referenced in popular culture in various forms of fictional media including literature, film, television and theatre.

Another example is: In addition to non-fiction influences such as the self-help course Mind Dynamics, cybernetics, the book Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, Scientology courses and the writings of its founder L. Ron Hubbard, Werner Erhard's self awareness courses were also influenced by a science fiction book he read shortly before forming Erhard Seminars Training, called: est: The Steersman Handbook, Charts of the Coming Decade of Conflict, by L. Clark Stevens.[1][2][3][4]

In general, a thorough copy edit would help the prose. Overall, the article is interesting and seems well sourced. It doesn't need much work to pass GA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Cirt (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Addressing some points from above
 * Thanks for taking on this GA review. I'll try to address some of these issues, and note them here, below.  Cirt (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) ✅ - Reference number 7 is actually multiple sources collapsed within one citation, but I removed a few so that it is smaller.
 * 2) ✅ - Split the first sentence into three smaller sentences, for readability and per suggestion by . On to work on the next one.
 * 3) ✅ - Split the next sentence mentioned by into two separate sentences, for clarity/readability.
 * I understand now about ref 7. To me that seems a bit unorthodox. Why not list them all separately? Where a statement is contentious, having a row of sources/citation numbers is like having a stack of books on your desk ...it looks as if you know your stuff. I'd prefer to see ref 7 broken out into individual refs. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - Split up sources into separate citations instead of combined, as per suggestion from . Cirt (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

GA Pass
The article could still be copy edited but it meets the GA guidelines. I enjoyed reading it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cirt (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC).