Talk:Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic GA Reassessment
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Reassessment
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: No further concerns raised; closed as keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
the lead tag has been there for two years now. may fail criterion 1b. ltbdl (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Have removed tag -- a four-paragraph lead for a 24kb article is within normal variance, even if not what a completely literal reading of the "useful suggestions" (direct quote) on MOS:LEADLENGTH has. I've also trimmed a few overlong sentences and extraneous details from the lead in the process, so it shouldn't be a wall of text now. Are there any other concerns? Vaticidalprophet 09:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- This was nominated by a "brand new" editor oddly well-versed in Wikipedia editing esoterica. Grorp (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- this is a clean start account. ltbdl (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- GAR isn't that hard to find these days, even outside the clean start context (which is entirely valid), and even a new editor could reasonably look at a long-term-tagged GA and want to ask questions about it. I'm just not sure if there are any further concerns than the marginally relevant tag (I ended up chopping some more out of the lead after the original message). The article is a little quote-heavy, which was common for its author; some of them could be paraphrased, but I don't know if they're at the "absolutely needing it to fit GACR" point rather than the "it would be a good idea" point, so possibly worth a second opinion. Vaticidalprophet 10:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.