Talk:Two by Twos/GA1

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

Reviewer: JesseLackman (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Full Review
This is a review with a disclaimer;

The readers of this review should consider Nemonoman’s concerns outlined below and remember that I have edited the article, I have participated in the discussion.

This is a review born out of frustration with the potentially biased sources that the Second Opinion reviewer also noted. A very basic problem with Reliable Sources for this article is the fact the fellowship the article is about doesn’t publish anything, with the exceptions noted in the article. This means researchers have no officially published "church" material to reference. Obviously this leaves the subject wide open to the personal opinions/interpretations of the available published sources and no means of countering with members opinions/interpretations per wiki source guidelines. In spite of this reality the article is fairly objective.

With that in mind, and for what it's worth, here goes;
 * 1) Well-written:
 * A. Prose quality: Could use improvement, example; “Sunday morning meeting (not open to the public[122][140][141][142]):” If these meetings are held in homes is it necessary to say “not open to the public”? If so, why? This one is especially cluttered; “Workers' meeting (not open to the public or to the general membership): This is restricted to workers and certain invited members.” It says the same thing twice. There doesn’t seem to be any good reason to not clean that kind of language up. Yet this type of edit is often immediately reversed as is recorded in edit history of the article.
 * B. MoS compliance: The Second Opinion editor covered this, please refer to their comments.
 * 1) Factually Accurate and verifiable Questionable.
 * A. Reading through the discussions will show open Reliable Sources issues. This issue has come up on WP:RSN;    Unfortunately, there is a lack of independent reliable sources, that is, sources that have never had connections to the fellowship the article is about. Many of the article's references (both print and web) are published by non members with connections, former members, and often without what is considered to be normal editorial oversight.
 * “Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” “In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments.”
 * Readers might ask, do the article’s sources hold to the above guidelines? Is verifiability possible when the fellowship does not publish its own data? When the fellowship itself hasn't published Doctrine/Christology should outside sources collectively attribute their personal opinion/interpretation about Doctrine/Christology as if it were universal fact?
 * 1) Broad in its coverage Questionable.
 * A. Major aspects: Questionable. The article attempts to state Christology/Doctrines for a fellowship that has no published doctrine. If collective assessments or statements are made about Christology/Doctrines/etc. solid objective data is required. This article source’s availability, quality, and obvious POV severely limits objective data available. Members of the CC fellowship have an amazing amount of freedom to live by their own convictions, which means any collectively applied Christology/Doctrine and other statements of that type most likely should not be made. This is what researchers like J. Gordon Melton  have done.
 * B. Focused: Questionable. The "International Pentecostal Holiness Church" article is a Good Article. It would serve well as a model of objectivity, consideration, and brevity.
 * 1) neutral Questionable.
 * A. Again many of the sources are personal opinions and interpretations compiled and published without normal editorial oversight . This being the case the article is in danger of becoming a springboard for the opinions/interpretations of its editors; WP:NOT “Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge”.
 * 1) Stable Fail.
 * A. GA review guidelines clearly state if the article is “the subject of ongoing edit wars, it is unstable, and thus should not be passed.” Stable does not mean wearing down other editors with instant page edit reversals and a deluge of progressively lower-quality citations until they give up. This article’s edit history seems to tell this story as do comments here and in the talk pages.
 * 1) images
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Pass.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Pass. The Impartial Reporter article image is a must read. There have been comments in the discussion about the general flavor of the Impartial Reporter articles as an impartial and objective source.

1 in 400 articles is approved as a Good Article. There are 47 good articles under “Religious movements, traditions and organizations”. I viewed them and noted very few have any discussion archived. The ones that do represent groups much larger than the friends and workers fellowship. Interestingly the “Five Pillars of Islam” discussion has no archives, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has nine pages archived, the CC article currently has six pages of archived discussion. This should cause any reader to wonder why a wiki article on small fellowship would generate that much discussion. Given the potential bias indicated by many of the source titles alone the article is actually pretty fair and admirable in many ways. However there are several major issues which need attention such as citations to more reliable, independent sources. As a result, I cannot pass the article.
 * 1) Concluding remarks:

Thank you, JesseLackman (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Review Discussion
I read over this page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria

In my opinion there's still a problem with this requirement for a Good Article; Most of the references are clearly research by former (non) members. And if verifibility trumps truth, verifible with what - other personal interpretations/opinions researched and published by non and former members who are in fairly obvious contact with each other? Step back and look at the big picture, charges outlined in early publications like the Coonyites section of Heresies Exposed show up in the present article, and in many books and articles in between. Publishing the same things over and over does not make what's published true. This leads into problems with this requirement for a Good Article; Factually accurate and verifiable:

Plus as I pointed out here-> there is bias in many of the reference titles themselves. If the source titles themselves clearly indicate bias what about the content?

JesseLackman (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesse I think the problem is that the single editor (anastyax) and his mentors (nonemoman and donoma) now have "Good Article" on the brain so no further corrections to the article are possible. Not that they ever were. The whole issue of Reliable Sources with which JohnCarter was involved was never actually resolved and died on the vine. That's because other than these three editors the editors at large don't want another Scientology on their hands. Of course, we don't act like Scientology so the CC-defamation league know they can take the field without any resistance. 206.130.91.154 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why there is such strong attachment to including statements that are so obviously subjective opinions interpretations that do not match reality especially in 2009. Bizarre. One thing I read on the Good Article page is keep the article as short as possible. Pruning out some of the obviously unsupportable subjective opinions and interpretations from interconnected and crossquoted non and former member publications would go a long way in making the article shorter with the added bonus of it matching reality better than it does now.

Everyone who reviews this should read through all the discussion pages. If any reviewer has any questions about what I've said here please ask.

thanks,

JesseLackman (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion
Other issues include the following:
 * The lead should not have any references. The lead is a summary/overview of the most important points in the article, and, as such, should not be the sole source of new information, and therefore should not have any references.


 * There are some sentences lacking citations. Ex: "Missions to continental Europe, Australia and Asia followed." and "However, workers will give sermons and prayers at members' weddings if requested. They officiate at the funerals of members."


 * Consecutive references should be in ascending numerical order. Ex. [13][15][86][100] instead of [15][13][100][86]. Exist some problems, ex. "[...](such as smoking, competitive sports, motion pictures and theater).[83][102][103][104][74]"


 * "Further reading" sections are strongly discouraged.


 * Echoing the main reviewer's concerns about biased references, other than the schisms/consolidation, there is no mention of dissension within the church, or negative press/persecution/&tc. The article, on the whole, is very positive in its depiction of the subject.

-- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Per your points, I have moved the references from the lead/summary down into the article text. I've also added references for the material noted and have rearranged the refs into numerical order. Thanks. &bull; Astynax talk 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinions/interpretations presented as fact.
Here's a good example of how the article presents opinion/personal interpretation as fact, this is a very recently added "source"; (Discussion here;)

Is this really the kind of a source that a "Good Article" should use to verify and present the statement "Workers do not engage in any formal religious training" as absolute fact? Surely any objective reader will ask - where did that source get its information? Following though on that question exposes a fatal flaw in many of the sources used for the CC article; they contain a LOT of subjective opinions/interpretations from non and former members. These opinions/interpretations are very often cross-quoted from other/previous sources, which quote other/previous sources, which quote other/previous sources, all the way back to the opinions/personal interpretations of non and former published in the likes of Heresies Exposed and Impartial Reporter articles. It is pretty obvious when you take a big picture view of the sources, the article references a lot of personal opinions and interpretations from non and former members that have quoted each other for the last 100+ years. Of course sources like these can be "verified" when they cross quote the opinions/interpretations of each other. For an example read The Cooneyites section of Heresies Exposed, then read this;, then the “source” I linked above. Another example is the recent Plain Truth Ministries article "Through the Desert in a Cult With No Name" It should be no surprise the author used some of the same sources referenced in the Chirstian Conventions article. See what I’m saying? (For a view of the reaction to this article from both exe members and members read these discussions; ) Since the friends and workers fellowship doesn't publish anything itself what means does it have to correct non and former member opinions/interpretations? All we have is real life experience. For some more history on this problem read the last few comments here; and this section; At the very least the article needs to be objectively reviewed and edited using the principles of  NPV: "A simple formulation" JesseLackman (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that all, or nearly all, members are indeed aware that the CC ministry does not have any formal theological training program or programs (nor have I read or heard that it has ever encouraged such—quite the contrary). If something of this sort has recently been instituted, please give us the benefit of a source. Yes, there are likely a few workers who have had had some formal training, but not under the auspices of the CC group (rather, the only ones of which I am aware obtained ministerial training before they joined the CC's). Such exceptional instances do not invalidate the statement, nor am I aware of any source which gives a contrary view. You disputed the accuracy of the source given,132 and I added several backup sources.122133134135 These seem to amply support both the original source cited and the statement in question. But you now pick another to attack, re-shopping your theory of how the sources are somehow all a bunch of hostile "personal opinions" without basis (or sources by authors who have done no independent research or verification other than relying on a few old and hostile sources). Sorry, but that is simply unreasonable, little more than unsupported, tendentious caviling based entirely on your personal speculation—or have you discovered a source for those charges? &bull; Astynax talk 07:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviwer Qualifications
Per Good article nominations you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, nor can you review an article if you are the nominator.

I do not believe that JesseLackman qualifies to be the Good Article Reviewer. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the article history will reflect that I have not made "significant contributions" to the article prior to this review, I have made a few minor edits, I have particpated in discussions, would that be considered "significant contributions" to the article?


 * JesseLackman (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You have made multiple major edits to the article and voiced a lot of strong opinions about it on the talk page(s). You have not contributed to any other article in the past 18 months. You have expressed previously numerous opinions denying the reliability of sources, the bias of major contributors, and made assertions about what should and should not appear in the article regardless of sourcing. You are scarcely uninvolved or disinterested, which is the clear intention of the requirement for doing a GA review. I've made my opinion clear. It would be the right thing to remove yourself from this role. I would very much welcome and encourage your involvement in a GA review headed by a disinterested editor. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, you have suggested that you are a member of the church itself, and that this membership provides a unique qualification to assess the verifiability of source material. You question sources because they may originate from former and non members of the church. You have every right to your opinions, but I suggest that you may have biases, conscious or not, that prevent you from leading an objective GA review. I have done a few GA reviews myself, and I have been careful to choose articles where I have some background but no particular connection to the article in question -- and since I have a lot of connections, many of them minor, but connections nonetheless, I have had to steer clear of many GAR requests. I suggest that you might try GAR'ing a different article than one where you have so much involvement. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Will you point out an example of a "major edit" I've made? Will you point to any part of the article and say, that is because of JesseLackman? I ask because I honestly feel as if I've had no influence on the article at all.


 * In answer to this request, I show these edits. I believe that JesseLackman had every right to make these edits, and also to argue for the changes he made (as may be found on the discussion pages). I present them ONLY to show that JL has made changes that alter the meaning and content of the article.
 * Changing facts not previously disputed, and providing no sources for the change
 * Changing a sourced statement to reflect a personal understanding. See edit note ' We don't profess faith *in the fellowship* but in God's promises, especially those through his son Jesus.'
 * Disputing that church ministers receive income In discussions, disputed that 'gifts' received by ministers were not income.
 * All changes were reasonable to make, but they suggest a bias JL's part that in my opinion suggest that he should not be the reviewer.--Nemonoman (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How would I remove myself from the role of reviewer?
 * JesseLackman (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say the method would simply to remove the entry you made as the GA reviewer. If that doesn't work, fail the article and I will relist it for reveiew.--Nemonoman (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"You have expressed previously numerous opinions denying the reliability of sources, the bias of major contributors, and made assertions about what should and should not appear in the article regardless of sourcing."
 * Wow, sounds like a wiki Inquisition going on here. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with Jesse stating his opinions, which I believe deserve respect and consideration (although I often argue with him); I have no problem with Jesse making edits to the article; I have no problem with Jesse stating his opinions about GA status for or against. I have found him to be a careful and considerate editor, and he would probably make a good GAR lead reviewer. In this case however, he has a dog in the fight, that's quite clear. In law even the most casual judge will remove himself from a case if there is even a notion of interest or bias. In this instance a question of interest and bias is highly evident. So while I entirely respect his opinions, I don't think that they provide a suitable environment for the GAR lead. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)