Wikipedia:Peer review/Space opera in Scientology scripture/archive1

Space opera in Scientology scripture
Looking back at Peer review/Space opera in Scientology doctrine/archive1, Featured article candidates/Space opera in Scientology scripture/archive1, and especially Featured article review/Space opera in Scientology scripture/archive1 -- Would appreciate any specific guidance and input, whether major or minor suggestions - to get this article back up once again to Featured Article status. Thanks, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good Article - I just took a read through the entire article. It sounds great to me.  Everything is well cited and it reads clearly.  I don't see any POV either intended or unintend.  When I get home tonight I'll copy edit the article and also check the references more thourougly, make sure there aren't any broken links or anything that is considered less then reliable.  I'll also take a look and see if I think anything maybe needs to be condensed or or combined or if any re-sectioning is necessary IMO.  I think it might be hard to condense anything more though since there is a lot out there on this subject.  Cheers! Elhector 20:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to copy items from the Automated Peer Review here, and explain how they were/are being addressed in the article Space opera in Scientology scripture, here on this page. The original Automated Peer Review is maintained at: Peer review/Automated/October 2007. There were (12) points of improvement brought up in the Automated Peer Review. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhrfisch (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you both for the comments. As the first reviewer said this was a "Good Article" - I put it up for WP:GA.  Seeing as how it was once a Featured Article, it may just pass as GA, but we can still work on it in the interim, as there is a big backlog at WP:GAC at the moment.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Automated peer review points being addressed
 * 1) If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one. -- ✅ - I moved an image from a lower subsection up to the top right corner of the article. This is a free use image rendering of the Xenu space planes, and was used in the initial blurb at Today's featured article/September 10, 2005.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 2) There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) -- ✅ - Well, nothing to do here, really. As this article is moreso an analysis of a mythological story, and not a description of a person, school, city, etc., there is no need to have an infobox at the top.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 3) Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 116 km, use 116 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 116&amp;nbsp;km.[?] -- ✅ - This change was easy, only 2 units of measurement in the article, miles and km.  Changed as suggested.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 4) Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] -- ✅ - You know for the life of me I looked through the article but I could not find instances of this, so I guess it must be in the citations. When I eventually go back through all the existing citations and format them with WP:CIT, this should take care of itself.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 5) Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?] -- ✅ - This was easy, there was only one instance of this: "The Theta Universe vs. Out MEST Universe." I removed the "The" in the header, as recommended.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 6) Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?] -- ✅ - This was one of the first things I did change initially, per WP:LAYOUT. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 7) Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?] -- ✅ - This was in regard to the long subsection, Alien civilizations. I just reformatted each of the mini-subheaders as bolded headers instead, so they still label the sections, but do not appear in the Table of Contents.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 8) There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. apparently  might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] -- ✅ - I removed three instances of the word "apparently".  They served no purpose in the article, it is clear who is asserting what and where, and in each location is already backed up by citations and source material.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 9) Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” --- ✅ - There were a lot of instances of this poor use of language present in the article's current state, so I removed them.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 10) The script has spotted the following contractions: won't, don't, DON'T, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. -- ✅ - I checked, these were all within quoted portions, so this is okay. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 11) As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] -- ✅ - I don't know why, but there were lots of instances of this weird refs spacing, scattered throughout the article. I removed the extra cite spaces.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 12) Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)'' -- - The article's language, syntax, structure, constant use of blockquoting in weird places, etc., all do not go along with this particular last point.  First things first, to go back and standardize all existing cites with WP:CIT.  But the article's structure and syntax probably need a once or twice over as well.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC).