Talk:The Road to Total Freedom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Hey, it's me again same routine as we did on Talk:Final Blackout/GA1 and again it might take me a couple of days to completely review it, Sadads (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria'

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Done

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  Done

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:  Done

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  Done

   C. No original research:  Done

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:  Done

   B. Focused: Done

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:  Done

5. Is it stable? Done
6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  Done

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  Done

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:✓ Pass

Lead

• "Wallis later discovered forged letters purportedly sent by him which implicated him in controversial acts." could do a little clarification in this sentence, doesn't really say much, how did he discover them? what controversal acts? What repercussions did they have? just in general vague, Sadads (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Research

• "The author had performed research on the subject of Scientology for his doctoral thesis; this was later printed as The Road to Total Freedom in 1976" Huh? Not sure what this is supposed to mean. The subject of Scientology? Thats huge? what author, the mentor or Wallis? etc. Please rewordSadads (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Also doesn't make sense in light of the sentence afterwards, may want to switch the order maybe?Sadads (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• The quote in "A review in The Times Literary Supplement noted of the research performed by the author for the book, "Wallis has manifestly worked prodigiously and under strain."[8]" doesn't make any sense, if you are going to use it give me some more context. Sadads (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Contents

• "The book presents a critical analysis of Scientology" Critical analysis or or a position critical of?Sadads (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• "The author writes that individuals were attracted to Dianetics, the precursor to Scientology, because it gave people a way to rationalize their problems, and place hope in the expectation of success and a fulfilled life.[11] Wallis notes, "[Dianetics] offered a rationale for failure in social mobility and in social interaction. It provided an explanation in terms of traumatic incidents in which the individual had been unwittingly involved, and thereby relieved him of responsibility for his failure."[12] " Both sentences say the same thing, do you have to include the second?Sadads (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Style

• Overall the language feels really stilted, with a lot of sentances in the structure of "Subject verb object" which makes the reading very very monotonous. Please try to diversify this a bit, otherwise the article is really hard to read. Sadads (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• For example lets look at the first paragraph of the lead "The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology is a non-fiction book about Scientology, written by sociologist Roy Wallis. The book was published in 1976 by Heinemann,[1] and in 1977 by Columbia University Press.[2] Wallis studied at the University of Oxford under Bryan Wilson, and the book had formed the research for his doctoral thesis on Scientology. Wallis negotiated with leadership of Scientology and provided them with a manuscript of the book; this led to edits to about 100 passages in the work."
  • The second sentence could read "Originally published in 1976 by Heinemann, it was republished in 1977 by Columbia University Press." This makes a turns the structure of the first two sentences from "SVO, Dc. (SVO) & (SVO)" to "SVO, Dc. Dependent clause(Dc), SVO." The clause anticipates the second SVO, and reduces the repetitiveness of the style.
  • The last two sentences could read, "The Road to Total Freedom was the product of Wallis's doctoral research at Oxford under the tutelage of Bryan Wilson . Wallis, after a review of the original manuscript by Scientology leaders, made edits to about 100 passages before publication." Again this turns the last 2 sentences from "SVO & SVO. SVO; SVO." to "SVO. S, Dc, VO." It's far less wordy and the second sentence puts a little anticipation in the clause, forcing the reader to break the strong driving rhythm that happens when all the independent clauses (SVOs) have the same structure and length.

In summary: reduce wordiness, vary sentence length and make some clauses dependent clauses that break up the driving independent clauses that repeat the same structure. Sorry, but for some reason when I read the article, it sounds monotone because almost every sentence reads exactly the same. I get the sneaking suspicion that I have been taking to many English classes recently.... I hope this helps, and I can try to do a full edit of the article for this if you would like. I often make the mistake at the other end of the spectrum, where I make sentences that are long and complicated and loose the reader in them, maybe that is why I am picking up on this. Sadads (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Or "The author discusses the appeal of the Scientology practice of Auditing, and compares this to abreaction therapy. Wallis describes how Scientology shifted from a cult to a sect in structure, and analyzes the authoritarian nature of the management of the organization." both sentences have the exact same sturcture and a very similar length "SVO&VO. SVO&VO." They even have the verbs that are synonyms! Are my comments making sense?Sadads (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Content (section)

This section doesn't give a very good sense of the order of Wallis's arguments in the book, could you give some order modifiers like "First, Wallis....Next, Wallis.... Furthermore, his arguement continues to ...." etc. This would make the reading of this section much clearer. I am not sure, for example,if the first paragraph is a summary or the first part of argument Wallis discusses.Sadads (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Responses to GA Review

Lead

1. Detailed more, per WP:LEAD, below in article main body text, at The_Road_to_Total_Freedom#Response_by_organization. Perhaps you could suggest some wording phrasing to add to the lede after this sentence? :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

   See change, I think that finishes the thought for me, though I would suggest summarizing the whole section even further. I think I have an idea, but I will do it tomorrow with some fresh eyes. Sadads (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Research

1.  Done, as suggested by GA Reviewer, moved two sentences around, for clarity. Thank you, this makes the flow a bit better. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
2.  Done, I just went ahead and removed this sentence. -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Contents

1. The sources support the wording, "critical analysis of". -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
2.  Done, significant trimmed down the first sentence, keeping second sentence per recommendation of GA Reviewer. -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Style

1. I would love to help fix this. Perhaps you could give a few examples, and I would happily strive to address these? -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

   Sure thing, I will find them soon, Sadads (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

   Oh good, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

   I have implemented all of the suggested changes, so far. If you like, feel free to recommend more changes here at this subpage, and I will strive to address them. :) And/or feel free to do some additional copyediting for style. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

   I started doing some of the editing. Definitely not going to finish it tonight I am getting a bit tired. So I will look at it again with some fresh eyes in the morning, or tomorrow. Sorry I am being a bit nitpicky, but the research seems pretty good, so I want to make sure it is communicated clearly, Sadads (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

   Your efforts are most appreciated, thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Contents

1. I did some edits and copyedits to this subsection, to address above comments by GA Reviewer. -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)