Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/L. Ron Hubbard/1

L. Ron Hubbard

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist. See below. Geometry guy 10:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Notified: PresN (initial GA reviewer), WP:SCIFI, WP:SCN, WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:SKEPTICISM, WP:BUDDHA, WP:MONTANA, and WP:SCOUT.

This article was passed as a WP:GA on November 7, 2006 - see Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/GA1 for the archive of the first GA review. I think it is time for a good article reassessment, as in my view the article in its present state does not measure up to current standards at WP:WIAGA.

The writing quality is certainly lacking and the lead/intro of the article does not satisfy WP:LEAD as it is not an adequate independent summary of the article. It is true that portions of the article are factually accurate and verifiable, but many whole sections/paragraphs are either completely unsourced or verge on WP:OR. Many aspects of the subject's history are discussed, but some are lacking including for example a bit more information on family history and personal relationships with immediate family, wives, children, etc. A recent post to the article's talk page notes at least one large chunk of text with NPOV issues. The article has been relatively stable lately but it should be noted that it has been permanently semi-protected since July. Images seem okay, but this one Image:MastersOfSleep.jpg has a "public domain" tag and a fair-use rationale which is rather confusing. These issues and others which other people may raise here should be discussed and addressed, but my take is that the article would need a significant amount of work to retain GA status at current standards, and should be delisted. Cirt (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a dense article, and I haven't given it more than a cursory glance at this point. However, I haven't found an entire section which is unsourced. The article doesn't suffer from a lack of citations; however, I'm not sure that all of the references are quality(sigh, it will take some time to check.) I'm also concerned with borderline POV-issues Cirt mentioned. The tonality drifts from neutrality in spots. Majoreditor (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct actually, there is no one singular subsection that is entirely without citations, but there are whole paragraphs that are unsourced, in addition to lots of other portions of the article that aren't sourced that well. Cirt (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist. This article is significantly under-referenced, which is the main reason it should be delisted.  Other problems include a heavy reliance on quotes (both block and in-text), and a lack of consistency in formatting the numerous block quotes found throughout the article.  The references themselves need quite a bit of work. All web references must have access dates and publishers, and titles should be linked, rather than having bare links.  References should be formatted the same way - currently some use templates and others do not.  Books should have page numbers. Dana boomer (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article sports 128 in-line citations at present. Admittedly, I identified (and flagged) three direct quotations lacking in-line citations, but this doesn't make the article "significantly under-referenced". My bigger concern with references is that some citations aren't complete, some aren't properly formatted and others may be of dubious quality. Majoreditor (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist. Several citations don't use reliable sources. See, for example, "Affidavit of Andre Tabayoyon (5 March 1994). Source: alt.religion.scientology." Many of the footnotes aren't properly formatted. There's also the matter of POV. Majoreditor (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist Doesn't follow WP:LEAD. It is too long.  Citation formatting is inconsistent.  Sourcing quality is spotty (Cirt is right, some sources are good and verify material in the article, but others are of dubious or unknown quality or don't verify the text).  Too many quotes.  Image:MastersOfSleep.jpg is both fair use and PD-age.  Tone is choppy.  Taking a section at random (World War II, I know that it summarizes another article) sees tone problems, factual errors, some misunderstanding regarding the navy's promotion scheme, and other issues.  Various style problems.  This isn't an awful article but it isn't a good article. Protonk (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist, the lead is underdeveloped; all the quotes are distracting; it could use some subheaders as the large blocks of text are pretty ominous; several of the references need proper formatting; citation needed tags; etc. Nikki  311  18:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)