Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raëlian Church/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

Raëlian Church
100% sure 90% sure 80% sure Kmarinas86 04:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
 * (b) a system of hierarchical headings; and
 * (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
 * (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reversions and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
 * It has images where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
 * (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
 * (a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
 * (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias; see neutral point of view.
 * Without even beginning to read, are the flag icons necessary? I'd also like the see that table be class="wikitable", but that's a minor quibble. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not necessary, though I'm not sure if the table is necessary either. Thanks for the tip on the table, it makes it appear better.Kmarinas86 05:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment..ummm..I get a big blank white section at the top of the page. I think you need to reformat the top.


 * I am not a fan of the flag in the lead text.
 * I see some problem sentences:
 * To enter, a woman declares an oath or signs a contract. Through these, it is agreed that one becomes Raël's bodyguard - not sure how but sounds funny.
 * For these reasons, several journalists have tried to know what the Raëlian Angels go under. - huh? Sorry I can't suggest something as I am unsure what it is this actually means.
 * ... Mike Kropveld, the head of Info-Cult, expressed a lack of concern for the Raëlian Angels - what does this mean? He wasn't worried about them? What is Info-cult anyway? bette, but expressed a lack of worry is clunky.
 * In the seminars, people use colored bracelets to indicate whether they want to be alone, have a couple, or meet anyone. - are available or taken?
 * touching 17-year-old girl(s) and a boy in an explicit manner as observed by their father who had previously agreed to attend weekly meetings after two years. The boy said that his mother's friends who were part of that movement deceived him. - needs rewrite. Not encyclopedic in tone.
 * The two think the video shows that the Raelians' must stop their cult operations. However, Sage Ali, a Raëlian guide, said he has no fear of the tape and knows of nothing in it to hide - needs a rewrite. Sorry I can't suggest something as I am unsure what it is this actually means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber  (talk • contribs) 05:34, May 22, 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The writing isn't up to the FA standard. The style is very choppy and there are a lot of odd word choices and grammatical errors. MLilburne 08:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For the amount of criticism this group has received, and the loads of potential reputable sourced citations out there, this part of the article looks pretty scant for some reason. And I also agree with MLilburne, the writing is choppy and strung together.  Definitely not "engaging", or "brilliant" prose, as required by Featured article criteria.  Also, this article is concurrently a Good Article candidate.  Is that allowed?  It seems a bit odd.  Smee 09:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Not only is it concurrently a GA candidate, but it has three, count them, failed GA candidacies behind it. MLilburne 09:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  WP:SNOWBALL Oppose . Three recent failed GAs, indicating nowhere near close to FA potential.  A special character in the first section heading?  (See WP:MSH).  Thank you for repeating WP:WIAFA for us; a lot of the same applies to GAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the three recent failed GAs have to do with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church&oldid=108627105 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church&oldid=126448977 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church&oldid=127161806

They have changed signficantly. So it's not exactly the same article. However, I do admit that the prose is choppy. This has been due to my recent simplifying of the English. I'll have to turn some pairs of sentences into complex sentences, though I'm not sure how fast that can be resolved. I also admit some of the criticism concerning Raëlism is in the Clonaid and Raël articles. But I think having the same criticism in all three articles is a bit redundant. Some people may think the criticism of Clonaid should be in the Raëlian Church article, but I think that has already been somewhat addressed. Despite that, I believe some will see that as a deficiency preventing this article from FA status. If that becomes signficant enough, I will have to merge those articles (under what name?). The criticism section is reaching the point where it is getting larger than the rest of the article. If that's what is required for this article to get to FA status sometime in the future, then I will do it. I may decide to find 100 third-party sources. But if they all say about the same thing, then there isn't really much to add. I'll see if there are new criticisms, as I think the current ones have already been exhausted in the article. A Google News search indicates that the vast majority of the criticism is centered on the cloning claim (Clonaid):

raelian critic OR controversy OR controversies OR questioned -clone -cloning] (13 results) From looking at the previews, none of them appear to be relevant.

raelian critic OR controversy OR controversies OR questioned (168 results)

clonaid critic OR controversy OR controversies OR questioned (200 results)

There appears to be no scholar more serious than Susan J. Palmer when it comes to going into the Raëlian movement and doing research. It appears criticism from a scholarly angle has already been exhausted. On top of the immense repetition of the Clonaid subject by the media, I think there is little more than a 10% expansion possible on the Criticism section in Raëlian Church unless if material is merged from other articles.Kmarinas86 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so far, I made some attempts to improve the prose as well as adding a new "Controversy" section (a milder form of the "Criticism" section). I know that it is almost a law that some areas of the article will have better prose than others. However, what is the best and worst part of the Raëlian Church article when it comes to prose has not been addressed yet. I could better knowing these two facts. Some of the new text I added are as follows:

Check for unencylopedic tone and bad prose in these. My eyes are dry.Kmarinas86 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start in terms of the prose, as it is a long way from FA standard. One general thing you should watch out for is that you have a tendency to omit "the" from a lot of phrases.


 * The word "the" appears in the lead 21 times, in the "Members" section 18 times, in the Activities section almost 30 times....Kmarinas86 02:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the "criticism" section:


 * The introductory paragraph isn't really necessary unless it can offer something with a bit more content than it currently has. It needs to generalize a bit better.


 * RemovedKmarinas86 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is the church considered a cult? What justifications are given for calling it a cult?


 * It's called a cult because the Raelian Church is a weird minority religion. But I don't think I can state that common, but unencyclopedic, and (always) implicitly given reason.  No one ever states why.  It's weird, so that's why its called cult.  If it was less weird, like Mormonism, it would be called a cult less often.  Note the clincher is that it is minority religion.  Islam is weird to many, but its a majority religion, so it isn't nearly weird enough to be called a cult.   In no articles have I read the word even being explained, because the justification is juvenile.  I don't think such a naive reason deserves space in the article.  Except, if you like me putting that naive reason in the article. =) Kmarinas86 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What does "threat to sanctity" mean?

Kmarinas86 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why the little flags in the article?


 * They are there because of what they do. They add content to the article.
 * But it will have to be removed now since too many people don't like it.Kmarinas86 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is an RMX 2010?


 * The phrase "portrayal of brutal mentality" is a very strange one. I don't think you mean portrayal.

Kmarinas86 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Raëlians have stirred controversy concerning pedophilia." A very unclear sentence.


 * RemovedKmarinas86 03:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Raëlian idea that children should have a sensual education is at the root of this controversy." Are you going to explain what this education consists of?

Kmarinas86 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to go on, but I think it makes it clear that the article needs a lot of work. MLilburne 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello MLilburne, Smee, and SandyGeorgia, there has been, what I believe to be, signficant changes to the prose in the article. I have read some featured articles in the past and have attempted to replicate their tone of speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church&diff=133115400&oldid=132619388

Kind regards, Kmarinas86 06:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I recognize the hard work that you've done, but I'm afraid that I really don't see the prose as having improved significantly. MLilburne 11:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you believe that the prose has been improved at all?Kmarinas86 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church&diff=133253066&oldid=132619388 Kmarinas86 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does seem to be making some progress now. Not enough to make FAC on this round though--I think aiming to make GA would be a more realistic goal, really. MLilburne 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Deckiller. It might have improved, but is nowhere near professional standard as required. Throughout, there's a sense that a loose oral style is the basis (e.g., "like in some Christian denominations"). Most sentences need surgery to be of acceptable standard in an encyclopedic register. Tony 13:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference is very subtle, and IMO not very well defined. Additionally, it has been my experience that a "tight" oral style leads to choppy prose.  The "middle ground" is not very well defined either.Kmarinas86 20:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also the phrase "loose oral style" is sneaky. It doesn't mean anything except what you want it to mean.  Google search current results 0 hits for this phrase (except 1 hit in google books), so explain what you mean by "loose oral style": http://www.google.com/search?q=%22loose+oral+style%22 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22loose+oral+style%22 http://books.google.com/books?q=%22loose+oral+style%22


 * In anycase, isn't the point of good prose to speak in everyday language?


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose


 * I removed "like in some Christian denominations"...Kmarinas86 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. 3 failed GAs? I don't know why this is taken to the FAC level. I don't quite enjoy the "Raëlian ideology" in a list-type format. In the image "Poster of Yes to Human Cloning (right)", why are there miscellaneous people in it? Crop out the picture of the poster and leave your religion-mates out of this encyclopedia article. The article is too short for FA. It's too short even with all the pictures and tables to make it look big. Box-quote is inappropriate because it puts POV on this religion, supporting it as a non-cult. The table to compare the meaning of MADECH in French and English appears non-encyclopedic. Discuss it in regular prose. SeleneFN 00:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also "Anold's flat bed truck with Raëlian symbol of infinity". We don't need to know this is a flat bed truck. We certainly don't need to know it belongs to Anold." SeleneFN 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I fixed everything you mentioned except the length of the article and the three failed GAs.Kmarinas86 03:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By moving material about the movement's size from the Raëlians article to the Raëlian Church article, I have added another page or two to the length of the article. Now tell me if it is too short.Kmarinas86 03:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The current Featured Article, Diplodocus is about just as long by word count and by references. But it was longer before you made your comment.  Thanks for helping.Kmarinas86 04:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I admire your perserverance, Kmarinas86. I do think you have all the necessary material, but it really needs a better copyedit. The prose just isn't quite up to "brilliant" yet. However, I do have a few comments that might help you copyedit this yourself (League of Copyeditors has too much of a backlog). I will give you a sample of the kind of copyedit that needs to happen before it comes near FA potential:
 * The image " Raëlian Church in South Korea" is really more of a gathering of the churchgoers. The caption should reflect that. When you say "Church", people naturally think of an actual building.
 * In the Original name section,
 * "a small the MADECH organization was born" - grammatical mistake
 * "By 1976, Raël created International Raelian Movement to replace MADECH." This should be the last sentence of the paragraph to transit from the old name, which you explained, to the new name.
 * "Order of Angels" should be one paragraph. "For this reason..." fits perfectly well after your previous sentence because it is a continuation of the same issue.
 * "journalists have been curious about what sort of pressure that Raël puts on the Raëlian Angels" maybe changed to "journalists have been curious about Raël's influence on the Raëlian Angels". Your "what sort of pressure" just doesn't sound professional.
 * Citing "Skeptical Inquirer" isn't really a good source.
 * "According to Brigitte McCann of the Calgary Sun in October 7, 2003, Mike Kropveld..." too many names. Omit McCann as she's not important in the point you're trying to make.
 * "Information from the movement's online newsletter Raelian Contact suggests the existence of a internal "structure" of 2,300 Raëlians who are strongly devoted to the Raëlian Church." Too wordy. Just say "Information from the movement's online newsletter Raelian Contact reflects on the structure of the Raelian church"
 * "there is a level assignment, which can go up or down." It's kind of obvious.
 * "about 170 Raëlian guides in the structure (level 3 to level 5) " to "about 170 Raëlian guides in levels 3 to 5..."

Anways, as you can see, quite a few sentences need work. Put your effort in eliminating any word that can be omitted, as they are just decorative. The prose just needs to sound more professional, though it's hard to give any specific advice for that, except read more FAs. SeleneFN 06:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your Advice was Great =D 10:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Too many external links, a picture in the cites?, 3 pictures of the same symbol?, maybe with some reformatting work to make it flow better from section to section.Mbisanz 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * External links removed. Picture in cites removed. Two copies of the the picture removed. Reformatting work not done yet.Kmarinas86 11:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If the only problem with this article is the prose, I think the article must then be really close to FA. It would be nice if someone experienced in good prose could do a copyedit of this article. I never seemed to get an A in college English.Kmarinas86 17:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose ... I'll have to apply for GA.Kmarinas86 03:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.