Talk:Raëlian history and beliefs

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#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): 
Bear with me, this is my first review:
Comments:
# "Followers of Raëlianism are believers in Elohim, an advanced race of extraterrestrials who created life on earth.[15]" - That sentence needs to be reworded. What do you mean by the sentence? Are followers of Raëlianism also followers of Elohim? or Is the religion of Raëlianism similar to Elohim? For someone who doesn't know the topic well, you need to make the distinction.
# The first three paragraphs under the heading of "History" does not relate to the sub-heading at all. They talk about Raëlianism seminars. If it is necessary, then split that into a different heading.
# The article does not fit in with WP:MOS. One main cause of this is due to the size of the article. The article itself is 66 kbs long. Under WP:SIZE, it is recommended you split the information into a different article. I believe the article itself can be split into two seperate article: an article on Raëlian history and an article on Raëlian beliefs.
# The sources that you have provided seem to be first party sources. Particularly in the "Beliefs" heading, it would be better to provide more reliable third-party sources. This would allow the article to demonstrate information from both sides of the topic, from a person who believes in this to an 'onlooker'.
# Sentences from the history section is written in present tense. The events have occurred, so please change the tense.
# The sub-heading of "Sightings" is not written from a neutral point of view. The article is claiming that the events and sightings did occur, but again, without the lack of third party sources, the article fails under GA criteria. 
# Most of the introductory paragraphs in every subheading goes straight into the topic. The article does not provide a general introduction to what it is, it just goes straight into the topic.
Of course, this is my first review so I have asked more experienced editors to review it and provide their own opinion. However, I would like to thank for the work that has been done so far. σмgнgσмg 06:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#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): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: </div>
The main reason why I am failing the article is because of WP:MOS. The article should be split into two different articles, one on its history and one on its beliefs. Once the split is done, copy-edit the two articles and renominate them for WP:GA. You have managed to address some the issues raised which is good. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. σмgнgσмg 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, as a disinterested observer who is currently in the middle of his own first GA review, I came here for pointers to see what others were doing. I think the history and beliefs could sensibly be separated and you have no need to apologise for the inconvenience. Anyone who puts an article up for GAR should be thick-skinned enough to expect constructive criticism, if not the Spanish Inquisition. Good work. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: While I don't agree with every point made above, there are some concerns that I believe would cause the article to fail at this time. Please note, however, that I did sort of skim the article and that the final decision to pass or fail is in the hands of the reviewer. Having said that, I did check out the specific concerns that were brought up and can finger at least two reasons that are fairly obvious for this article being failed.
#Point #3 is the biggest issue; I'm not sure why these two facets of Raelism have been combined into one article, when they could easily both stand alone as two. I suggest that a discussion be started and a consensus be formed on whether not split the article because, quite frankly, I think the very nature of the article means that it fails the "focused" criterion. I can't imagine there being a "History and beliefs of Scientology" article, for example.
#Leading from that, Point #4 is only a concern because you have combined the beliefs and history sections. By the very nature of having to describe the beliefs of a religion, it's natural to have to use a lot of primary sources to outline the beliefs, tied with third party sources to augment, enforce, criticize etc. History, on the other hand, should rely far less on the primary sources and much more on third party observers. Given the over-extended scope, the amount of primary sources used is troublesome. 
As I said above, I did not fully review the article, and this is only an opinion, but I do believe that just those two concerns are serious enough to merit a fail. If the reviewer does choose to fail this article, I suggest that a consensus be reached on whether or not to split this article before renomination. It seems very strange that two disparate subjects that could stand on their own have been merged into one here. Cheers, CP 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd Opinion From [[User:Canadian Paul]]

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#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): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: </div>
The main reason why I am failing the article is because of WP:MOS. The article should be split into two different articles, one on its history and one on its beliefs. Once the split is done, copy-edit the two articles and renominate them for WP:GA. You have managed to address some the issues raised which is good. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. σмgнgσмg 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as a disinterested observer who is currently in the middle of his own first GA review, I came here for pointers to see what others were doing. I think the history and beliefs could sensibly be separated and you have no need to apologise for the inconvenience. Anyone who puts an article up for GAR should be thick-skinned enough to expect constructive criticism, if not the Spanish Inquisition. Good work. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall assessment