Talk:The Hole (Scientology)/GA1

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 02:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I will do this review. It seems interesting. PrairieKid (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


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

See below.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * This article requires a copy edit. The grammar throughout has several mistakes. Quotations (such as the one at the beginning), commas, and spelling were some of the most common mistakes made in the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article cites many refs several times throughout, and about 3/4 of its refs are pages in books, which I am not able to check on, which worries me. I can't simply assume good faith. The Background section's 3rd paragraph needs more citations. The Media exposure and legal inquiries section's 3rd-7th paragraphs all need more citations.
 * Regarding books as citations, I refer you to WP:SOURCEACCESS. Andrew327 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * A section called Escaping from The Hole?! The entire article is completely biased against Scientology. "Over the next three years, the number of people confined in The Hole..."
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * This article has been nominated for deletion over a dozen times. I don't think the article is very secure.
 * Many Scientology articles have been subject to deletion campaigns and other tactics. This pattern ultimately led to a well known ArbCom case.  Andrew327 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Many Scientology articles have been subject to deletion campaigns and other tactics. This pattern ultimately led to a well known ArbCom case.  Andrew327 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article does not meet the GA criteria at the time. I don't think it has the potential to be upgraded to meeting the criteria within a reasonable amount of time. PrairieKid (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This article does not meet the GA criteria at the time. I don't think it has the potential to be upgraded to meeting the criteria within a reasonable amount of time. PrairieKid (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)