Talk:The Pit: A Group Encounter Defiled

Expansion notes

 * (15) reputable citations so far. Article could use expansion, more citations, perhaps some more images.  Also, could use subsection on the film based on the book, and more citations about the film.  Smee 08:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

NPOV
I'm a little concerned about the very subtle anti-LGAT bias being displayed in this article. I have no opinion on LGATs, but if they are a sham/scam or whatever, you can lead the reader to that conclusion without pushing them along the way. Phrases like "chilling details" don't need to be used (even if they're sourced). Also, the thing about the coffin, cross, oxygen bottles, and piano wire insinuates something sinister, without actually telling us what they were used for. If in fact they were used for something creepy, wouldn't it be better to just tell us what the book alleges rather than simply arouse our suspicions?  howcheng  {chat} 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was only quoting what I could find in reputable cited sources. Please check the citations.  There is no "anti-LGAT bias", you may be reading into the perceptions of another editor...  In any event, this is precisely why I strive to be meticulous about finding lots of reputable sources.  Thank you for your time and noticing the article.  Smee 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
 * On another note, I found out what those items were used for in the training, and I will add that and a citation to the article. Thanks for pointing that out.  Smee 00:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I understand your concerns, but using a word like "chilling" in the flow of the sentence is subtly biased. If you really want to use that word, find some way to make it clear that it comes from the book itself. Then again, my expertise isn't in articles, it's in images, so take what I say with a grain of salt.  howcheng  {chat} 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the word "chilling" came from a secondary source that described the book, not from the book itself, and it was most certainly not WP:OR. But I am fine with removing it - it simply served as a sort of review of the book, from that secondary source...  Smee 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Added information, quotes, citations, descriptions of some of the objects that were referenced in the (Golembiewski) citations. Smee 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)