Wikipedia:Featured article review/Xenu/archive1


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

The article was kept by User:Joelr31 14:40, 5 December 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WP Scientology, WP Paranormal, David Gerard, ChrisO


 * 1c:
 * Inline Citations needed for quotes, statistics: a basic GA criterion is not fulfilled. Inline refs needed for all of them, giving whether primary or secondary references are used. If primary references, publisher, page numbers, date of source needed.
 * Wherever Hubbard's views are stated, they need an inline reference to support the fact that they are Hubbard's views. S
 * tatistics like dates (years) need references.
 * Possible WP:OR "shows pictures of uniformed men in white helmets carrying boxes in and out of a spaceship, which may refer to the transportation of Xenu's victims."
 * Then there claims of things being "the most popular critical Web site", "popular with critics". **Inline references like "Hubbard, Scientology: A History of Man" lack publisher info, year, page numbers. Others include refs 2,3,4, 42.
 * ref 5: seems to be a blog, not so sure, see home. Anyone who can read Dutch can verify (I used Google translate).
 * The neutrality of can be disputed. It seems to be an anti-Church of Scientology site, I doubt the reliability of the writer too. It's disclaimer reads "DISCLAIMER: I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions."
 * Reliability of and,  is doubted by me. Prove it to be a RS.
 * Violations of WP:MOS: "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article"
 * 3: Images: Image:Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png, Image:Xenu BBC Panorama.jpg needs fair use rationale.
 * were added to the page, see, which were reverted.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * were added to the page, see, which were reverted.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Many of the above points are indeed valid ones. I will try to work on this. Hopefully there will be others that can pitch in and help as well. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The subsection title that includes the word "Xenu" I have changed to "Variant spellings". You dispute the Peter Forde article is reproduced in its entirety on xenu.net. The disclaimer by Andreas Heldal Lund refers to his own personal opinions, not those of Peter Forde whose work he is hosting on his site. Karin Spaink's web site (the Dutch one) is not a blog. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the figure of 75 million years intriguing. Is this related to what is considered to be the K-T boundary (Cretaceous-Tertiary; don't ask me how the C became the K) ? Katzmik (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * K-T was 65 million years ago (the K is German for Kreide, Cretaceous, and is used as the standard abbreviation). Hubbard may have believed that the dinosaurs were killed off by Xenu, but he evidently got the date wrong by 10 million years. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Several editors are working on improving the article currently - just a heads up that we may need a bit more time. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), MoS (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. We've done some tweaking and copyediting, and gone through and removed some unsourced material, and addressed the self-referential subsection headers. I will try to work on sourcing and cite work soon, would appreciate a tad more time. Cirt (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * has been quite helpful in improving the article lately, and there are still ongoing improvements actively being done. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The MoS concerns have long been addressed. The two images cited have fair use rationales spelled out- are these not sufficient? Apologies but I'm new to the FARC process, so what's the issue there? OR and some dubious refs have been deleted. I welcome guidance on what remains to be done.MartinPoulter (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well after I see you have done some cite work I also plan to go over it and help out more, and perhaps hopefully others will as well. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have asked to add back some fact tags that were previously placed in the article, so we can see where to focus on as far as referencing efforts. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job. The article has certainly improved, though i have tagged it at places. References like 2,3, 39 (a few mentioned, check all) lack page numbers. Please add them, haven't tagged them. Needs some more work to remain FA. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tagging, I will get on this soon, within a couple days at latest. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redtigerxyz - much appreciated. I think the way is clear to resolve remaining problems with references, though I've only had time to skim this week. Expect further progress in the next couple of days.MartinPoulter (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing i forgot to say was my doubts about neutrality and reliability of references has been not answered. Though there is improvement, my vote for now is Remove, which i will definitely change once all issues are addressed, and I see no more of doubtable (web) references. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I have had some IRL issues come up and I have not gotten to this sooner. has been doing some great work, and I will get to addressing the above points myself soon. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have done a bit of work on this, but many thanks go to for all of his help and hard work as well. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the last few days Cirt has done a great deal of work improving the sourcing and removing dubious material. It seems to me that this addresses all the concerns raised. brought up some legitimate problems but the quality of the article has been raised to meet them. Thanks for bearing with us.MartinPoulter (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Great work but a little more is needed. Missing page numbers for references in ref 3,4, 15, 17, 18, 21 etc. still an issue. The article should have any ref info left out, like page numbers. Nearing Keep, not reached yet -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will address these remaining points and give an update soon. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Additional points addressed, and I left a note for . Cirt (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I missed Cirt's comment as another user had written a comment on my talk, so new messages did not show Cirt's comment. Anyway now it's a Keep. Great job. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Cirt has done an excellent job of overhauling the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.