Talk:James Randi/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) 00:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the numerous issues with this article I feel this would meet the quick-fail criteria, but I am going to give a little latitude since there seem to be quite a few active editors. First off is just the preliminary overview of where I feel it passes and fails:
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Now, the tag that keeps getting removed is clearly valid, but there are other issues not explicitly addressed by that tag. The most glaring issue for me is the "legal disputes" section, which is filled with BLP problems. Specifically, citing Randi's foundation almost exclusively for claims about third parties such as Geller and Dubois is inappropriate. If third-party sources discuss all these legal disputes with third parties then those sources should be used and, if such sources do not exist, the material should be removed. Also, a lot of the wording in this article reads more like a glowing review then an encyclopedic biography and it clearly isn't stable with the edit-warring over the tag, the "scientific skeptic" wording, and other content disputes. Until these problems are resolved the stability issue will remain an impediment as well. I will try to provide a more detailed listing of the problems tomorrow.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

The following is a list of the problematic material I have found in the article that still needs to be fixed, not including the legal dispute section I mention above:


 * Lede
 * " . . . which he collectively calls 'woo-woo'"
 * No mention of this in the article body.


 * "Although often referred to as a "debunker", Randi rejects that title owing to its perceived bias, instead describing himself as an 'investigator'."
 * Same problem as above, except it does not even seem to be in the cited source, and the bolded phrase is editorializing. If this is Randi's perception then that should be made clear.


 * Early life
 * "He took up magic after seeing Harry Blackstone, Sr and reading magic books while spending 13 months in a body cast following a bicycle accident. He confounded doctors who expected he would never walk again."
 * First sentence is rambling. The part of the sentence dealing with him spending time in a body cast should be split off into a new sentence or combined with the second sentence. Additionally, the second sentence seems a bit sensationalist in its wording. Everything after the bit about Blackstone also appears to be a close paraphrasing of the news article.


 * "Although a brilliant student . . ."
 * Puffery. Would be easier note his IQ level, which is mentioned in the article.


 * " . . . posed as a psychic to establish that they were actually doing simple tricks and briefly wrote an astrological column in the Canadian tabloid Midnight under the name "Zo-ran," by simply shuffling up items from newspaper astrology columns and pasting them randomly into a column."
 * Use of simple in both parts is unnecessary puffery. The first bolded phrase is also problematic in its description of his motivations. If he claims in the source that he posed as a psychic to do this, then that should be what the article says, rather than saying it in the editorial voice.


 * " . . . Randi worked in Philippine night clubs and all across Japan."
 * Material about Japan is not in the source.


 * " . . . to convince churchgoers of his divine powers."
 * I cannot find a version of the source for this that is not behind a paywall, but unless it indicates that he has claimed to personally have divine powers, as opposed to claiming that he is communicating with God, this phrasing is a BLP violation.


 * Career
 * "Randi worked as a professional stage magician, though preferring to be called a "conjurer", and escapologist beginning in 1946, initially under his birth name, Randall Zwinge, and then as The Amazing Randi."
 * This sentence runs on a bit too long and the use of commas is confusing. Splitting this sentence up would make it easier to read.


 * "In the February 2, 1974, issue of Abracadabra (a British conjuring magazine), Randi defined the magic community, saying, 'I know of no calling which depends so much upon mutual trust and faith as does ours.' In the December 2003 issue of The Linking Ring, the monthly publication of The International Brotherhood of Magicians, Points to Ponder: Another Matter of Ethics, p. 97, it is stated, 'Perhaps Randi's ethics are what make him Amazing' and 'The Amazing Randi not only talks the talk, he walks the walk.'"
 * These sources should be cited in the reference section and the second sentence should remove most material about the issue when that is done.


 * " . . . which focused on Houdini and his cohorts."
 * "Cohorts" is a pretty loaded term to use. Sentence changed based on reliable secondary sources IRWolfie- (talk)


 * " . . .on other major paranormal figures"
 * Describing people as paranormal seems inappropriate from a clarity and neutrality perspective.


 * "In 1988, Randi tested the gullibility of the media by perpetrating a hoax of his own. By teaming up with Australia's 60 Minutes program and by releasing a fake press package, he built up publicity for a spirit channeler named Carlos who was actually artist Jose Alvarez, a friend of Randi's. Randi would tell him what to say through sophisticated radio equipment. The media and the public were taken in, as no reporter bothered to check Carlos's credentials and history, which were all fabricated. The hoax was exposed on 60 Minutes; Carlos and Randi explained how they pulled it off."
 * The bolded phrases in this paragraph have a general tone of mockery and triumphalism to them that are unnecessary and not neutral.


 * "In the book The Faith Healers, Randi . . ."
 * No citation is provided in the reference section.


 * Personal life
 * "Randi has said that one reason he became an American citizen was an incident while on tour with Alice Cooper where the Royal Canadian Mounted Police searched the band's lockers during a performance. Nothing was found, yet the RCMP destroyed the room."
 * There needs to be a reliable third-party source to verify that the incident occurred, and the second sentence needs to be reworded as it seems to be overly sympathetic to Randi and hostile to the Mounties.


 * Awards and honors
 * The claim that he won a Philip J. Klass Award needs to be supported by a source independent of Randi.

Now for some stuff that is a little easier. The two images in the career section need captions that explain the relevance of the image and prompt people to read the article, I feel the JREF image also needs a better caption. I have also tagged a few places where I think there need to be citations. Another issue is the "Unexplainable.net" source used in the paragraph about Hydrick as the other link doesn't appear to work. It is not clear to me that this would qualify as a reliable source. Should someone be able to locate a better source for this I would be satisfied.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone addresses the issues with one of the specific statements above, I would like it to be crossed off.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After 20 days with very little change, I do not feel there is much point in keeping this up any longer. Fail for the reasons provided above. These concerns should be easy to address if a sufficiently interested editor comes along and then it can be renominated.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)