Talk:Stephen McNallen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Midnightblueowl. I'm going to begin a formal good article review soon, within the next day or two. This is the first time I've ever reviewed an article, so please be patient with me. I came across the article at random and thought it looked good. I am surprised in fact that it is not a good article already. Although I know very little about heathenry, and had not previously even heard of Stephen McNallen, I find the article well-written and interesting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the article meets the six good article criteria as follows:

1. "Well-written" - yes, almost entirely. There are only a small number of things that I think could be improved, or which I might do differently.

• In the first sentence, "Stephen Anthony McNallen (born October 15, 1948) is an American proponent of the modern Pagan new religious movement of Heathenry", I would not have linked "American" to "Americans", which is arguably a case of overlinking. Most biographical articles, including those on prominent figures closely linked to United States as a country and Americans as a people, such as Barack Obama or Donald Trump, do not link "American" that way in the lead, even though there might be more reason to.
  • A fair point. I have removed the link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• For the sentence, "He espoused a belief that he named metagenetics, the idea that religions are connected to genetic inheritance, thus arguing that Heathenry was only suitable for those of Northern European ancestry", I would have tried to find a way to abbreviate or shorten it slightly. "Belief" and "idea" are similar terms and ideally one would not want to use both in the same sentence if that could be avoided, since they cover much the same ground. Maybe instead that sentence could have begun with something like, "He espoused the belief, which he named metagenetics, that religions are connected to genetic inheritance..."
  • I've trimmed this sentence in the manner that you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence "Under increasing personal strain, in 1987 he disbanded the Assembly" reads a little strangely to me. I would have preferred to write that as, "In 1987, under increasing personal strain, he disbanded the Assembly", the reason being that it seems best to put chronological information first, and say when something happened before saying what happened. This makes sense inasmuch as the arrangement of information in the lead as a whole is basically chronological.
  • The issue with this is that I am not sure that the "personal strain" purely developed in 1987. The current wording indicates that that strain may have been more longlasting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• One sentence reads, "While there, he began to investigate alternative religions, reading up on the modern Pagan religion of Wicca and the writings of the occultist Aleister Crowley". I would have preferred to find some alternative to the informal expression "reading up". There are surely plenty of synonymous terms that could be used instead.
  • I've changed this to "reading about". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• One sentence reads, "The sociologist of religion Jennifer Snook described it as "the first national Heathen organization in the United States". You may disagree, but personally I would not have begun a sentence of that kind with "the".
  • I'm going to disagree here, if that's okay; at a number of previous GAs and FAs I've found that there are editors who always insist on the addition of "the" when referring to someone's professional position. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• One sentence reads, "In the early 1980s McNallen used The Runestone to begin promoting his theory of "metagenetics"; the idea that spirituality or religion was encoded in genetic material and thus passed down to one's descendants." I wouldn't necessarily change that, but perhaps I might have instead begun it with a slightly simpler wording ("In the early 1980s McNallen used The Runestone to promote his theory of "metagenetics"...)
  • Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• One sentence in the article reads, "This generated conflicts at the AFA's annual meetings, or Althings, for instance when Michael "Valgard" Murray – one of the Neo-Nazis within the AFA – threatened to kill a fellow member of the Assembly because they were gay". I dislike that the way it is written because it leaves the gender of the member of the Assembly who was threatened with death unclear. If the information is available, the article should make it clear that it was either a gay man or a lesbian, as the case may be, who was threatened with death (thus, "he was" or "she was", rather than "they were"). This would be more informative to the reader. Besides, "they" is a term I would use to refer to an individual only if there is no reasonable alternative.
  • That's a valid point. I'll make sure that the (male) gender is specified in the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• One sentence reads, "He has also expressed support for all ethnic separatist movements across the world, including that of the Tibetan, Igbo, Karen, and Afrikaner people" - I would have thought "those" was correct rather than "that".
  • Good point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• An article section is titled, "Race and political ideology". Although it might seem redundant, I suggest that this section could be retitled "Views on race and political ideology", to connect its name as closely as possible to the article subject.
  • I've changed this to "Views on race and politics". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Most of the above points are not absolutely crucial, but it might pay to take a second look in each case. The "they were gay" part is the thing I would most like to see changed.

2. "Verifiable with no original research" - Yes, an effort has certainly been made to cite all the information in the article.

3. "Broad in its coverage" - Yes.

4. "Neutral" - Yes, no problems where neutrality is concerned. Seems nicely balanced.

5. "Stable" - Yes.

6. "Illustrated, if possible, by images" - Yes. Doesn't seem to be any problems there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for this review FreeKnowledgeCreator. I've made many of the changes that you suggest and have also expressed disagreement with one of them. Take a look and let me know what you think. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have looked at your recent changes to Stephen McNallen and read the article again; it looks great. I am not concerned that you have not adopted some of my suggestions. I do not see an objection to passing the article, but before I pass it, there are two final points to consider. First, in several sentences of the article you have used the abbreviation U.S.; according to WP:NOTUSA, "at least one major American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), now deprecates U.S. and prefers US (without periods)." So perhaps U.S. could be changed to US. I realize that this is a minor point, but I am mentioning it all the same since I want to consider everything that might be done to improve the article. Second, since this is the first time I've reviewed an article, and since I'm reviewing an article on a topic I'm not so familiar with, I'd like your frank assessment of my review and a brief comment on how you think the article meets the six article criteria. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that you did a really good job of conducting the GAN review, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Your thoroughness with regard to prose was commendable, and was probably more than was even necessary at GAN (it was more the sort of thing that one expects from Peer Review). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

With regard to why the article meets the GAN criteria: I would say that it is well written because it generally flows well and is all formatted correctly. The sentences and paragraphs are structured appropriately and the spelling and grammar is correct. It is verifiable and has no original research because every piece of information included in the main body of the article is appropriately cited to a WP:Reliable Source, while the lede summarises that material in a more concise form. The article is broad in its coverage because it contains a mention of virtually everything regarding McNallen that has appeared in published reliable sources, and provides a decent overview of both his life and many of his beliefs. It is neutral because it neutrally repeats the information found in the reliable sources (many readers and editors misunderstand what WP:Neutrality actually means). It is stable because there is no edit-warring over the content, and the images used are all free to use and do not pose any copyright concerns. Hope that helps! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Passed article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)