Jump to content

Talk:Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articleChurch 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 24, 2010Articles for deletionKept
September 28, 2010Good article nomineeListed
August 7, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 3, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the development of the Wikiscanner software by Virgil Griffith in 2007 revealed Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia?
Current status: Good article

GA Reassessment

[edit]

The 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) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: No further concerns raised; closed as keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the lead tag has been there for two years now. may fail criterion 1b. ltbdl (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
This was nominated by a "brand new" editor oddly well-versed in Wikipedia editing esoterica. Grorp (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is a clean start account. ltbdl (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.