Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space opera in Scientology scripture/archive1

Space opera in Scientology doctrine
Another masterpiece of understatement from ChrisO (who wrote about half of Xenu). It's a fairly obscure subject ... but Xenu, which one FAC objection thought would be "too obscure", is now enormously popular in the blogosphere  and is quoted in most of the recent press about Tom Cruise's proselytising behaviour (unattributed, but the phrasings are pretty distinctive). I think this has potential for enormous popularity. So it's a good thing it's well-written and has its references, isn't it. It went through peer review just recently, which helped a lot. I now open it to you to tell us what shrubberies (nice ones, mind you) it needs to be a feature. We've just started WikiProject Scientology too, by the way, so expect more of these - David Gerard 22:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent, comprehensive, well-referenced, the mechanical gorilla is a high point. Sadly, there is only one really good illustration—the DC-8—but that problem is inherent in the subject, no doubt. Great stuff! Bishonen | talk 23:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, would do well with better illustrations, but it is indeed comprehensive and well referenced. Phoenix2 23:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The image Image:Fangio moss monza.jpg is claimed as fair use, but I don't think it can be used in the article under fair use. --Carnildo 17:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It was probably fair use in the original article it was uploaded for, but yeah, it's been removed now. Images were a particularly difficult one for this article (though the gorilla is a good photo, and the Himalayas shot is spectacular - click on the image and check it out!) - suggestions are most welcomed - David Gerard 12:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great work. The only thing I can say is really? You've really got all those sources and they really say all that? It all more or less falls in the category of the Fishman affidavits stuff I have read, so I believe you, but this stuff is still really hard to believe that people would really buy into it. Specifically the intro could use some citations, especially for this "It forms a major element of the beliefs of Scientology" and the next sentence. That may be really obvious to you, but it seems a central point in the article. Keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 18:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * ChrisO has added a new section describing how Scientology has hammered home the space opera aspect of its doctrine in its publicity materials - David Gerard 12:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Taxman.  Anville 02:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Support, although the article itself is good, sections are of good size, there are too few pictures coming with the article. Deryck C. 09:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Suggestions are most welcomed! - David Gerard 12:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Commons has a decent selection of images. For example, Image:Formula one.jpg, suitably modified to remove the logos, could be used to replace Image:Fangio moss monza.jpg. --Carnildo 20:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ideally it'd need a racing pic from the '50s or '60s, I think, contemporaneous with Hubbard's lecture describing it. I'll be seeing what I can turn up. But crikey, we do have some very nice auto racing images on Commons ... - David Gerard 14:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Suport, for all the reasons listed above. WegianWarrior 09:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Suport. pamri 03:50, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * comment Could audio pronunciations be added? lots of issues  | leave me a message 23:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm, audio pronunciations of what exactly? -- ChrisO 00:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of Hubbard's neologisms, presumably (e.g. "Arslycus"). There are sites with some Hubbard audio on them; I'll see if any can be found - David Gerard 21:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * weak object. Some of this is good stuff, but some of the sections (e.g. most of the "goals") are so short that they should be combined, expanded, or removed altogether.  Right now, some of them have virtually no useful information.  Incidentally, it should be explained what a "goal" is. Dave (talk) 15:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't recommend combining the goals and incidents - the article effectively provides a catalogue of the principal such events that Hubbard describes. However, I agree with your point about explaining what the goals are, and I've done this now. -- ChrisO 20:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you add a descriptions of the confusion the goals allegedly cause? For example, if I'm supposed ""To End", "To be Dead", "To be Asleep", "To be Solid", "To be Sexual" and so on," what problems would that cause in me today?  Why is it important to "clear" all of these?  If this is added, I think I'll be ready to support. Dave (talk) 14:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)