Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy

The Illuminatus! Trilogy
The article discusses a 1970s work of popular fiction. In comparison with the only 2 other featured articles in that category, i find it superior to The Foundation Series, and roughly equal to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-- although Illuminatus doesnt have the same degree of "multi-media" aspect, so concentrates more on the novel itself, its creation, themes, and significance. It was built around the "WikiProject Novels" guidelines, and aims to provide full 360-degree coverage of the subject while avoiding original research. All major assertions are sourced. peer review raised 2 issues, both have been addressed, & it was successfully accepted for Good articles status. would be interesting to see it on the mainpage before The Da Vinci Code movie is released - so the general public can see where Dan Brown stole his ideas from! ;-)
 * Support selfnom Zzzzz 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. The images of the book covers don't have their fair use rationales filled out yet.  Jkelly 17:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * they do now. Zzzzz 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object The lead doesn't adequately summarize the rest of the article. See WP:LEAD.  WP:NOR and WP:V problems.  Lots of unsourced speculation, such as "This suggestion that hippy culture was somehow being controlled by secret forces is typical of the books' ambiguous attitude towards the New Age."; whose opinion is that?  Ours?   Same with "The trilogy is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, with an absurdist plot built of seemingly plausible, if unprovable, components." and "theatre philanthropist and all-round cosmic thinker Ken Campbell".  There is a lot of unsourced opinion here.  Some sentences are confusing.  "Atlanta Hope is a mock right-wing version of [Ayn] Rand." -- what are we saying here?  I suspect that an editor is saying something about the politics of Ayn Rand, but I'm not even sure what that editor's opinion is, even if we wanted it in the article.  The article needs someone to go through it and trim back some of this speculation.    Incidentally, that one "See also" item would be great to work into the text if it is actually important.  Jkelly 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I have added a few fact tags for the last few items that seem to be unsourced.  I also made a couple of minor copyedits.  I look forward to supporting after these last couple of statements are fact-checked.  Jkelly 18:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for specifying your objections; I'll take a look at them and see how they can be addressed. I can't speak for the other editors on the article, but I don't know enough about Ayn Rand or her politics to have an opinion on them, and I think the fact that Atlanta Hope is a parody of her is pretty universally held (I would have thought it was obvious from the book title Telemachus Sneezed) and should be easy to source (I think!).  The see also you're referring to: OM? Шизомби 03:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect Operation Mindfuck could be fit into an appropriate existing paragraph, but I'd support the article regardless of what's done with that once the other objections are addressed -- it's a minor point. Jkelly 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * i had a stab at addressing your comments. most have now been done, BUT (1) i couldnt see what was wrong with the lead - it summarizes the article well. and (2), is the "cognitive dissonance" thing really an opinion? just seems like the right word to describe a story that throws multiple viable & contradictory viewpoints at you. please reply! Zzzzz 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't mention the word "fnord", doesn't mention numerology, doesn't mention counterculture, and doesn't mention the authors' "follow-ups", all of which are entire sections within the article. Jkelly 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, I think a lead should summarize the main sections. The subsections are another matter, they vary by author and subject, and in this case, are mostly very specific areas that make most sense in context of the article, but are difficult to summarize without causing confusion. I think the main sections, where there are subsections, should have subsummaries (some articles jump directly from section heading to subsection, which is usually a problem), and a lead is a summary of main section summaries. IMO, as a broad "rule"... --Tsavage 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * i tried to satisfy both of you - lead has been expanded as per jkelly, and followups section has been given subsummary (& OM is incorporated into text). jkelly, what about "cognitive dissonance"? can you elaborate on that complaint? i just added some citations for the claim, but dont know what specifically about that sentence you have a problem with.Zzzzz 20:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ok the last few unsourced statements now have citations (plus some extra ones) as per jkellys request. all good now? Zzzzz 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, with special thanks for the parties involved in being so responsive to concerns. Jkelly 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. DenisMoskowitz 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support 23skidoo 19:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I believe it compares favorably to the other works of fiction featured on Wikipedia. So, basically, I support per nomination. Fieari 19:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, I believe it meets the criteria. Шизомби 19:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Meets criteria, good inline citations. --Danaman5 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm impressed. -- grm_wnr Esc  20:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - This article is ten times better than the book itself. I never managed to read more than 50 pages through all this gibberish. I finally know what this book has been about. JoJan 20:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nicely done article about one of the most hilarious books ever written. BlueShirts 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support As a general reader, I found this to be solid on all counts. It was a clean read, the tone inspired trust, the references look reassuring (the range, not the number of...!), and I left well-informed and without unanswered questions. PS: It is a long read, but I didn't find excessive detail or boring bits, and the sections and subheads seem well-organized if anyone wants to FF. --Tsavage 21:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (I think the article is noticeably better after response to objections... --Tsavage 19:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Additional note: After Tony's objection below, I re-read the article. I did make a lot of unintended allowance for imprecise, casual, sometimes less than clear writing due to being caught up in the...spirit of the subject. I do agree in general with that aspect of all of the objections to date (although the variation in WP writing style between articles and topics has to be taken into account as well). I'm not changing my vote, as "fixes" have proceeded rapidly, and I don't have a problem with the overall content and references. However, I'll read it again in a couple more days (if it hasn't suddenly vanished...). --Tsavage 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Sounds bizarre, but I'll buy it. RyanGerbil10 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Yep it hits all the right notes--PopUpPirate 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent set of Notes and references, nice use of images. As a fan of The KLF I consider the little section about them spot on and well written. --kingboyk 00:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Meets all of the criteria. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - a solid work rendered out of an often-confusing subject. -Litefantastic 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Very nice. Beautifully balances the books' content and influence. Small suggestion/question: Would it make sense to rearrange the Plot section to include subsections for the individual books? (not having read these, I can't speak to it) Staxringold 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that might overly complicate things. Since the books were intended as a single volume by the authors, and are most commonly available in a single volume today, I think it may be best as is. Шизомби 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Heh, as I said, I trust you on this a lot more than I trust myself. Twas a minor suggestion, it reads fine now and doesn't need any divides IMO. Staxringold 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - but please don't use serial commas and remove merge that one-paragraph section, "Numerology". --Cel es tianpower háblame 13:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant merge, sorry. --Cel es tianpower háblame 21:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * what about expanding that section to 2 pgraphs instead of one? Zzzzz 12:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose: [Objections below now addressed. Andrew Levine 14:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)]
 * Lead makes no reference to the Principia Discordia, which was a huge influence on The Illuminatus! Trilogy, if I understand the article correctly.
 * "Some of America's founding fathers are alleged to have been members of this sect." Needs to be sourced.
 * "Hagbard alternately battles and represents the Discordians and the Illuminati, the conspiratorial organizations who are either colluding with or fighting each other." What? This is confusing. If it means what I think it does, the confusion is surely deliberate on the part of the novel's authors, but that's no excuse for us to be so obscure. Our audience should not have to go back and re-read a sentence because they thought they may have misunderstood it.
 * "See Also 23 (numerology)" -- Why?
 * "Quotations" sections belong on Wikiquote, not here. The only quotations in an article should be integrated into the prose.
 * Andrew Levine 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment all above issues are now corrected, but i disagree about putting principia discordia in the lead. doesnt make sense to make a reference to something even more obscure than the article subject itself in the *lead*, it is well discussed later anyway. so imho it should not be put in the lead. i put a reference to Discordianism in the lead, is it enough? but all other issues i agreed with, & are corrected.Zzzzz


 * Comment What the people voting in favor of this article don't want you to know is that they're actually part of a vast, worldwide conspiracy, involving the masons, the kindergarten teachers, Opus Dei, and the cattle mutilators. Of course, they won't let this comment stay up for long, because their web of power is even now spreading its tendrils into Wik...--Bcrowell 04:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Very poorly written. Here are a few examples.
 * Object . It has improved, although it's not yet compelling prose. Tony 09:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "their artificially intelligent onboard computer"
 * "... as an emblem on a uniform and so on,.."
 * "Within the book this is used as an example of the conspiracies teasing us by showing hints of their existence which we refuse to believe ..."
 * "The Illuminatus! Trilogy is particularly broad in terms of content,.."
 * "at one point hallucinating his own execution."
 * "he is finally broken out of jail"
 * "for example, as an altar, a tattoo, etc."
 * "All views of reality ever mentioned in the book ..."

Even if the writers of these novels intended their prose to be quirky, the prose here is not quirky by design. Our users deserve to read about the subject in either plainly written or cleverly unusual English. This is neither. Tony 12:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll agree that "Within the book this is used as an example of the conspiracies teasing us by showing hints of their existence which we refuse to believe ..." could benefit from some rewriting, but I'm not sure why you think the others aren't "plainly written" or why they are "quirky" or "cleverly unusual." Do they violate some rule of style or grammar? Шизомби 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They're mostly vague, grammatically incorrect or syntactically ambiguous. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the 9 examples given have all been cleared up. if there is more, please list them and whats wrong with them (as i had to randomly guess what you personally didnt like about the above). Zzzzz 22:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. It meets all the criteria for a featured article.Tankred 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. —xyzzyn 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Her Pegship 15:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support this is hippie literature at its best. Nixdorf 22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as whacko as the composition appears to be, this work is a reference for almost any "conspiracy" literature (or hack-work) which followed. Wilson & Shea were far ahead of culture consciouness on this.  68.75.166.22 13:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Good article on a good subject. GlendaJanssen 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)