Talk:Spirit Fruit Society/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Looks interesting. I'll try to post some comments after the strike ends tomorrow.

• Alright, it looks like we're back online. Overall, I am impressed with the article, I was completely unaware of this group. I think it's pretty solid, neutral, and informative. I only have a few relatively small questions/issues. Not all of them are strictly part of the WP:WIAGA rules. I made some fairly minor edits, hope you approve of them.

1. The lead is fairly small, you may want to put a few more details about its origins and history there. The lead does not have to be cited, but you should probably cite the quote in the lead.
2. Some of the quotes don't seem to line up with the guideline for quotation marks at MOS:PUNCT.
3. "who had been a patient at the sanitarium, but was healed by a Christian Science faith healer, Mrs. Elizabeth K. Gregory." Maybe qualify this to some extent so it doesn't seem like were claiming there was a miracle healing.
4. " a sanitorium of his own and hired Beilhart on as an associate." Do we need "on" here?
5. In the third paragraph of the Founder section you use "religion" four times in three sentences, maybe use another word for variation?
6. "Beilhart rejected materialism" Just to double check, is that the right target of the link? Or did you mean to link to Economic materialism?
7. "the fear of losing love caused much of the disease in people." Maybe rephrase this part, it reads a bit oddly to me.
8. "following your conscience; take responsibility for actions — and develop an awareness of the consequences of your actions on others;" Is there a way to rewrite this without the use of "your"?
9. "As the leader, it is assumed" maybe note who assumed this?
10. "other, more politically or religion oriented, groups." Maybe note "such as"
11. Check the dashes for compliance with MOS:DASH.
12. There are a few small paragraphs in one section, can you combine them a bit?
13. Try to be consistent with how you write "free gift".
14. Does the fact that someone is the cousin of an Ohio State Librarian really merit inclusion here? It seems a bit trivial to me.
15. "The case eventually was dismissed by the Columbiana County courts on the somewhat equivocal grounds that it lacked jurisdiction." What do you think about moving this to the "Notes" section?
16. Why did you italicize that one quote?
17. "it has been claimed, were" Maybe note who claimed this?
18. Should probably add a convert template when you mention acres.
19. "About a dozen members of the Spirit Fruit Society moved with Beilhart to Illinois, along with a few new members." Maybe qualify the "dozen members" Established members?
20. "covered by a recent housing development" Maybe say when instead of just using "recent".
21. As far as sources go: this and this look like self-published sources to me. Now, per WP:WIAGA that is ok as long as they are not backing up claims that are likely to be question. Based on my brief check they seem to be ok. I'd prefer if you tried to minimize the use of them though. For the Murphy book I noticed that you didn't cite page numbers, would it be possible for you to do that? Or page ranges (say, for a chapter) at least? Also, try be be consistent with publisher locations.'

• Alright, that's all I came up with reading through. Overall, I'm impressed! Mark Arsten (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the comments! I'll get to working on improvements right away! Wikipelli ^Talk 13:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing your bullets to numbers. I hope that's alright. It will make it easier for me to refer back to your comments. I really do appreciate them!Wikipelli ^Talk 19:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a very good idea, I should make a note to do that in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

So far... what I've done and comments/questions

2 - quotes... I took a stab at it but I'm going to ask someone more knowledgeable than I for some help on the quotes.

Ok, it looks fine to me (I may be mistaken too though). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

4 - done

5 - done, but I'd like your thoughts on the resulting sentence

Alright, it reads better to me now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

6 - fixed - good catch. I hadn't noticed that at all.

7 - changed.. I'd like feedback on the resulting sentence if you have time .... it's 'clunky' to be sure. I'd like to keep what I think is the essence of the sentence because I think it's integral to the Society

I like your change, it looks better to me now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

15 - moved to Notes per your suggestion but now I'm wondering if it is really necessary at all

16 - quote italicized out of habit - nothing more. Fixed per wp:mos

18 - I put the convert template in only for hectares (ha). My reading of wp:mos suggests that both acres and hectares are 'common' so I didn't link them.

Probably ok. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

19 - done Wikipelli ^Talk 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Cousin of State librarian and state senator a member of the society

Question about your comment (#14) there. I didn't think it trivial so much. I guess I felt that it added some legitimacy (notability?) to the Society... sort of saying it wasn't some back-woods thing. Hard to explain. If you think it's too trivial, it can be taken out easily. Wikipelli ^Talk 13:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that I look at it again, yes, your explanation does make sense. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

more edits

13 - done... "free gift" now consistant Wikipelli ^Talk 13:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

more edits

1 - added details to lede

3 - rewritten. I don't know that I it suggested a miracle before (though some sources suggest that it was indeed a miracle). Now it simply (and factually) says that while under the care of the faith healer, Post's health improved.

8 - rewritten but still feels clunky - would like feedback :)

9 - edited by reviewer

10 - I'd like to cite other political or economic groups but the source didn't elaborate. It seems like original research to assume which other groups the author was referring to. I've altered the sentence.

20 - edited by reviewer

Wikipelli ^Talk 21:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, your fixes look good to me. There are still a couple small things, but I don't think they parts of the GA criteria. Happy to pass the article, thanks for your responsiveness to my nitpicks. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Don't know if you're aware or not but it's the first article of my own (mostly) that I've nominated or had passed to GA! I really appreciate your helpful comments and edits! Thanks so much... Wikipelli ^Talk 22:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)