| Revision as of 17:43, 5 May 2009 editCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits →Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology: indent← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:53, 5 May 2009 edit undoMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits →Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology: cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| ::::::::For one, ]. Is this article supposed to be a serious evaluation of Scientology? I would add the various anti-Scientology and brainwashing books quoted. —] (]) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ::::::::For one, ]. Is this article supposed to be a serious evaluation of Scientology? I would add the various anti-Scientology and brainwashing books quoted. —] (]) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::That's two out of how many sources? ]'s book is simply being used to quote Burroughs himself, that's not really an issue. And the other book you refer to is published by Kent State University Press. ''']''' (]) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | :::::::::That's two out of how many sources? ]'s book is simply being used to quote Burroughs himself, that's not really an issue. And the other book you refer to is published by Kent State University Press. ''']''' (]) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::Forget it. You do not appear amenable. I will probably take it to GAR if I am going to go through all the work of reviewing the references. Why are even two readily apparent? —] (]) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:53, 5 May 2009
Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently achieved WP:GA quality status, looking for input to help improve writing style further, tweak prose, etc. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Notes left for Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Books. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment on automated peer review
I looked over the automated peer review, nothing much to address from there. The lede conforms with WP:LEAD, the article uses appropriate linking, an infobox is not necessary, and the article utilizes all available relevant material from reliable sources after exhaustive researching. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
From Moni3:
- Is there no reception or critical analysis of the book? If you're planning to take it to FAC, that would be a major obstacle.
- I think the article so far is well-written and comprehensive until that reception and analysis point. What are your plans there? --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Awadewit (talk · contribs) and I have done a bit of work and research, but have been unable to find reception/analysis information. Perhaps you could try as well? Cirt (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm stunned. Nothing on the writings of William S. Burroughs? Is Scientology such literary plutonium? I'll look, but the only glimmer of hope I can provide is that my library might have something that Awadewit's does not. I'll do some looking. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, anything further as far as additional material from WP:RS sources about the book would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- "I'm stunned. Nothing on the writings of William S. Burroughs?" That should tell you something. It is a collage of ramblings and thoughts from years gone by and not a serious work of literature. It's like issuing an album of composed of various outtakes to get another Elvis Presley recording. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Mattisse, we are not here to critique and discuss our own analyses of Burroughs' work itself. That would be WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Cirt, that is more or less what has happened in the article, as you have the views of a few nonliterary POV commentors plus "biographical" use of the book. This is a book that is out of print now, and was never taken seriously as a work of art. Hence Moni3's comment about being "stunned" that after twenty some years, there is no literary comment. What reason do you give for a book written by a great writer receiving no critical comment whatsoever? Already this article and its POV is number one on Google if you look up the article. This peer review is number two. This kind of thing gives Misplaced Pages a bad name. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Who are the nonliterary POV commentators? Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- For one, Paulette Cooper. Is this article supposed to be a serious evaluation of Scientology? I would add the various anti-Scientology and brainwashing books quoted. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's two out of how many sources? Paulette Cooper's book is simply being used to quote Burroughs himself, that's not really an issue. And the other book you refer to is published by Kent State University Press. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Forget it. You do not appear amenable. I will probably take it to GAR if I am going to go through all the work of reviewing the references. Why are even two readily apparent? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's two out of how many sources? Paulette Cooper's book is simply being used to quote Burroughs himself, that's not really an issue. And the other book you refer to is published by Kent State University Press. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- For one, Paulette Cooper. Is this article supposed to be a serious evaluation of Scientology? I would add the various anti-Scientology and brainwashing books quoted. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Who are the nonliterary POV commentators? Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Cirt, that is more or less what has happened in the article, as you have the views of a few nonliterary POV commentors plus "biographical" use of the book. This is a book that is out of print now, and was never taken seriously as a work of art. Hence Moni3's comment about being "stunned" that after twenty some years, there is no literary comment. What reason do you give for a book written by a great writer receiving no critical comment whatsoever? Already this article and its POV is number one on Google if you look up the article. This peer review is number two. This kind of thing gives Misplaced Pages a bad name. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Mattisse, we are not here to critique and discuss our own analyses of Burroughs' work itself. That would be WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- "I'm stunned. Nothing on the writings of William S. Burroughs?" That should tell you something. It is a collage of ramblings and thoughts from years gone by and not a serious work of literature. It's like issuing an album of composed of various outtakes to get another Elvis Presley recording. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, anything further as far as additional material from WP:RS sources about the book would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm stunned. Nothing on the writings of William S. Burroughs? Is Scientology such literary plutonium? I'll look, but the only glimmer of hope I can provide is that my library might have something that Awadewit's does not. I'll do some looking. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)