Talk:FACTNet/GA1

GA review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article as written is well sourced, but needs some broadening of coverage to meet citeria 3, as there is little on the founding or basic organization of the group

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
A few small prose tweaks to clarify things would not go amiss
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Well sourced to reliable sources
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
I've listed this as pass, as there are no current pictures in the article. If a logo is used, it would need to be checked again.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede could stand to be beefed up a bit. It should cover all aspects of the article, and as it stands there is no coverage in the lede of the conflict with Scientology. Also, the lede as it stands right now covers information that is not in the main body of the article. I suggest moving the current lede to a new main body section, perhaps titled "Mission" or "Founding". For more information see WP:LEDE.
There is information in the infobox that should probably be incorporated into the Founding section I've proposed above, like the date of founding, what type of organization it is, the motto, etc.
Conflict section, I might retitle this as "conflicts" as they seem to be a series of different conflicts with Scientology.
Conflict section, first paragraph, third sentence, were the directors' raided directors of FACTnet?
Same section and paragraph, last sentence, at what university did the protests take place? Why did the counterprotest take place at Boulder if a Denver judge issued the warrant?
Same section, third paragraph, first sentence, shouldn't it be (through its subsidiary...)?
Same section and paragaph, last sentence is awkward
Perhaps break the Conflict section into subsections, one for the seizure one for the film/TV work
Conflict section, last paragraph is long, perhaps break into smaller paragraphs.
Conflict section, last paragraph, fourth from last sentence, I assume that the 'their staff' is the South Park staff, but in the context of the sentence this is not very clear.
Internet law section is a bit sparse
Resource section, also sparse.
The motto listed in the infobox, is it from the organizations website? If so, it should be treated as a direct quotation, and cited. For something like a motto, it's okay to cite to the organization itself.
Lastly, does the organization have a logo? If so, you can probably use it on the article, which would be nice.
Overall, I'm concerned that this article doesn't tie things all together. What it is right now is a collection of information on conflicts with Scientology that are not tied into the subject of the article, which is the organization. The article covers the conflicts from an NPOV, but there is little background on why the organization was founded, when it was founded, what it did before 1995, and it could use broader coverage on what it's done since 1995. It's a good start, but doesn't quite meet the broad coverage criteria for the GA criteria.

I'm failing this article because of the above mentioned concerns over the broadness of the coverage. I'd like to see more on the founding and day to day efforts of the organization. The lede also needs work.On the plus side, the article covers the conflicts with the Church of Scientology in a neutral manner, not always an easy thing to do. The article is well cited also, and cited to reliable sources, which is good.

If you disagree with my assesment, please feel free to discuss it on the article talk page, on my talk page, or bring the article to WP:GAR.Ealdgyth | Talk 19:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to GA Review

Thanks for the detailed review, you've listed a lot of specific good points to work on, and I'll try to get all the above stuff up to snuff at some point soon and resubmit later on. Cirt (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

It's a very good start, and I really hated to fail it, but it just needed a bit more work than was reasonable to ask for in a 7 day hold. I look forward to seeing it resubmitted! Ealdgyth | Talk 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, your review here will certainly help point efforts in the right direction. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]