Talk:Early life of L. Ron Hubbard/GA1

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

Since the original review has been declared invalid I will conduct an individual reassessment of this article. AIR corn (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Made a few minor changes as I went through (diff. Article appears to be in good shape.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Biographical accounts published by the Church of Scientology depict Hubbard as "a child prodigy of sorts", as Professor Ruth A. Tucker puts it. Why does this sentence say "biographical accounts published by the Church of Scientology" and "as Professor Ruth A. Tucker puts it". Which is it? I would choose one.
 * Although the Church of Scientology states that Hubbard was awarded blood brotherhood "in a ceremony that is still recalled by tribal elders",[22] a Scientologist of fractional Blackfoot ancestry sought during the mid-1980s to prove that Hubbard had been a Blackfoot blood brother but was unsuccessful. He instead issued his own proclamation of Hubbard's blood brotherhood, which tribal officials disowned. I am not sure what this sentence is saying. I am wondering if there is a gramatical error somewhere. Did he someone who remembered the ceremony?
 * "he worked as a supercargo and helmsman aboard a coastal trader which plied the seas between Japan and Java. "Worked as a supercargo and helmsman"? Maybe this could be taken out of a quote so it makes more sense. Or (sic) could be used.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Cite 17 "Tucker, p. 300" is not present in the references
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Is there more information about his early writings at University? Was anything published?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * As far as the Good article criteria go I am happy with this. Everything is attributed as required.
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Just a few minor things that shouldn't take too much work to confirm the Good status. AIR corn (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the review. I think I have taken care of everything that you mentioned. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sweet. AIR corn (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the review. I think I have taken care of everything that you mentioned. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sweet. AIR corn (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)