Jump to content

Talk:Project Chanology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Good Article Review: Fixed and changed 'a's to 'aye' and added 'aye' where I wanted them to be. Also, passed.
→‎Good Article Review: delist (was quickfail)
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
}}
}}
{{talkheader}}
{{talkheader}}
{{GAnominee|00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)}}
{{DelistedGA|05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)|oldid=194365257}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1 = {{Scientology|class=B|importance=Low}}
|1 = {{Scientology|class=B|importance=Low}}
Line 138: Line 138:


If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|Good article reassessment]]. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.<!-- Template:PGAN --></div>— [[User:Lyoko is Cool|Lyoko is Cool]] ([[User talk:Lyoko is Cool|talk]]) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|Good article reassessment]]. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.<!-- Template:PGAN --></div>— [[User:Lyoko is Cool|Lyoko is Cool]] ([[User talk:Lyoko is Cool|talk]]) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

==Delisted==
I was going to fail it for not being stable - the protests are continuing, and it's likely to change day-to-day significantly - what GA criterion 5 strongly advises against. '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 05:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:06, 28 February 2008

Template:Multidel

Tom Cruise Video Section Image Caption

I would say that the image is mislabeled, but I may be wrong. The phrase "Scientology Isn't Free" relates far more to the fact that Scientology charges for its "audits" rather than the fact that you'd have to be a paying Scientology to see the video eventually in the audits. The caption would be for more appropriate under an image of, say, a protester holding a sign saying "The text of this sign has been removed due to a copyright complaint by the Church of Scientology". In this case that image is mislabeled, in my opinion. Cs302b (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll check that out, mebbe move the image or something. Cirt (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look at the current caption used: Removal of the Tom Cruise Scientology video from YouTube prompted calls of censorship of available information by the group. -- That is accurate. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can we agree that if a freely available image could be found that shows someone holding a sign stating "The Text Of This Sign Has Been Removed Due To A Copyright Complaint By The Church Of Scientology" would be far more accurate, considering the caption?Cs302b (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the copyright owner of this image asking for their permission for use, I havn't heard back yet: http://www.flickr.com/photos/23685734@N06/2257317362/ It appears to be a better image to use. Does anyone think it isn't the best to fit or wouldn't look as good resized down to the thumbnail size? Cs302b (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, could work - but it just basically shows the sign itself. A free-use image with some sort of similar sign but also w/ protesters would be better. Cirt (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point.. I havn't heard back from that user anyway. I'll keep an eye out and get back to you when I find something.Cs302b (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still havn't heard back, anyone else find a similar image? I think that one similar to the one I found would be far more suitable to the section and caption. Cs302b (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I'll have a look around and see if we can't come up w/ a better free-use image. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bunker

Can anybody find a verifiable source that says Mark "Wise Beard Man" Bunker from Xenu TV attended the Clearwater protests on February 10? I know that he did, because I have seen him in a video anon posted to YouTube of him attending, his own video in which he indicates that he attended, and a video in which he interviews bass player and noted OTIII Scientologist Billy Sheehan. However, I'm not sure that YouTube videos are verifiable sources that can be used on Wikipedia. Is there any source that we have that can verify that Mark Bunker attended the Clearwater protests? scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was Clearwater, not Los Angeles? Here are two sources:
  • David Sarno (2008-02-11). "L.A. takes part in Scientology protests". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-02-23.
  • David Sarno (2008-02-10). "'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets". Web Scout. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-02-13. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
The latter, in which Mark Bunker is mentioned, is actually a blog post. However, its author is a staff writer of the Los Angeles Times; in fact, the former is the published (abridged) version of the post, which I included for the sake of credibility of the source. Ayla (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure. I assumed that it was Clearwater, actually, because I knew Bunker lives there and that there were protests there, but it could well be L.A. Seems a bit of a distance for him to go, though. But I don't recall anything in the video explicitly stating that Bunker was in either Clearwater or L.A. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wise Beard Man is wise. He no longer lives in Clearwater, Florida - he lives in California. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The post he made on his website indicates that he did indeed attend the LA raid but was forced to leave due to a medical mishap. 129.21.114.185 (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd wave

Another set of protests are coming on march 15, this one looks bigger then the February 10th ones--68.98.137.7 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We're still waiting for Scientology to issue response videos requesting their favorite cake and frosting flavor. Because hey, take it from me. This cake is great. 142.12.15.4 (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you're doing it wrong

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.244.223 (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=65331&postcount=1 -How about some recognition of this in the "reception" part? Anonymous 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't use primary sources in article. Ayla (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible need to split

The article is currently ~74 kilobytes long. This is a HUGE article. The section on Anonymous' internet activities is particularly large and is ripe for splitting off into a daughter article, leaving a brief overview in this article and a link to the main article. Thoughts? LaMenta3 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I agree that it is huge by wikipedia standards, but all the information (in my opinion) is "meaty" and ties together. to split it would cause a less coherant flow of information for the reader, and possibly appear that one type of activity was a "major part" of PC, and the other type was a sub section...and I beleive that they are both equal.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just thinking in terms of this article ever reaching GA or better, this will be a huge (no pun intended) concern. I don't think that there will be much sacrifice to the perceived relative significance of the internet activities if they are just summarized in this article and the blow-by-blow is moved to its own page. The section is so long as it is, that this approach would pare it down to a size comparable to the other sections. I can see this eventually happening with the IRL protests as well. Another alternative would be to (somehow) break the section down further so as to break up the text and solve a bit of a "tl;dr" problem with the section. LaMenta3 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can cross that bridge when we come to it. WP:GAC is currently pending, see tag at the top of this talk page. However, I agree that some of this info/text in the article is a bit verbose, and could be trimmed down/summarized, etc at some point, just not yet. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with both sides of the argument. The article is long, but splitting has a good chance of hindering further development. For example, several of the sources would have to be duplicated, since they discuss both background and actual protests. Note that Internet activities by Anonymous not related to Project Chanology are not mentioned in this article, but in Anonymous (group). Ayla (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews

Both interviews mention the Project Chanology protests; should they be added to the article under the "See also" section? The Jeff Jacobsen interview also includes an image (from the commons) which could be used next to the Lisa McPherson text: Anonymous protests Scientology in Phoenix on February 10th 16.jpg. Ayla (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should add these, the articles themselves don't directly deal with this subject matter specifically, just as a few side questions. But we could add the image. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Plenty of sources and manages to keep NPOV, though the topic is controversial. However the article remains stable only when the article is protected, and as of GA Criteria Vandalism reversions should not be needed. Therefore, I would like a second opinion on the stability of the article. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, from WP:WIAGA: Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 28, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Many verifiable sources.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Maintains NPOV even though it is a controversial article.
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Lyoko is Cool (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted

I was going to fail it for not being stable - the protests are continuing, and it's likely to change day-to-day significantly - what GA criterion 5 strongly advises against. Will (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Chanology&oldid=194594478"