This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to bring this to good and featured status eventually, so I'd like some feedback on it. It's a tricky topic to write about, so any comments would be appreciated. I'd specifically like feedback on understandability, encyclopedic tone, and flow/organization. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk)
23:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
"Slack" is of utmost importance. [It] is never clearly defined ... [but] has been welcomed by college students and artists in the United States. - Just like
deconstruction, eh? (No action required)
The Church of the SubGenius was founded by
Ivan Stang and Philo Drummond, who initially established the SubGenius foundation. - Relationship between the foundation and church? Perhaps "The Church of the SubGenius was founded by
Ivan Stang and Philo Drummond as the SubGenius foundation" or... Something about the current sentence reads odd. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
15:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Dobbs' fictionality should be noted fairly early on in text. Otherwise "The deity gave him supernatural knowledge of the past and future, in addition to incredible power." and sentences like it sound fairly fantastic.
Stang has expressed concern about the group's possible effects on mentally ill devotees, although he believes that the church genuinely helps most adherents. - What possible effects?
Some SubGenius members put little emphasis on meetings, citing the church's focus on individualism, although the Book of the SubGenius discusses community, as well. - A little overcomplex there, four commas...
Beautifully written and referenced. One small critique: the "Categorization" and "Appraisal" subsections – isn't that kind of the same thing? "Praise" and "Criticism" might make more sense.
Accedietalk to me05:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Hmm, that's a good point. I think the difference between this and the example given in that guideline is a list of pros and cons that are subjectively evaluated and spuriously added to either the pro and the con category ("I like feature X, this secondary source likes feature X, therefore I'll put it in the 'Pro' section for this article"), in contrast to a neutrally curated list of positive and negative reception/reactions to something like a piece of art, literature, or other by-nature subjectively received cultural items. But maybe that's just splitting hairs :) Anyway, there's probably a better logical way to split those two sections up; the distinction between "Categorization" and "Appraisal" just feels too murky to me.
Accedietalk to me05:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to bring this to good and featured status eventually, so I'd like some feedback on it. It's a tricky topic to write about, so any comments would be appreciated. I'd specifically like feedback on understandability, encyclopedic tone, and flow/organization. Thanks,
Mark Arsten (
talk)
23:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
"Slack" is of utmost importance. [It] is never clearly defined ... [but] has been welcomed by college students and artists in the United States. - Just like
deconstruction, eh? (No action required)
The Church of the SubGenius was founded by
Ivan Stang and Philo Drummond, who initially established the SubGenius foundation. - Relationship between the foundation and church? Perhaps "The Church of the SubGenius was founded by
Ivan Stang and Philo Drummond as the SubGenius foundation" or... Something about the current sentence reads odd. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
15:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Dobbs' fictionality should be noted fairly early on in text. Otherwise "The deity gave him supernatural knowledge of the past and future, in addition to incredible power." and sentences like it sound fairly fantastic.
Stang has expressed concern about the group's possible effects on mentally ill devotees, although he believes that the church genuinely helps most adherents. - What possible effects?
Some SubGenius members put little emphasis on meetings, citing the church's focus on individualism, although the Book of the SubGenius discusses community, as well. - A little overcomplex there, four commas...
Beautifully written and referenced. One small critique: the "Categorization" and "Appraisal" subsections – isn't that kind of the same thing? "Praise" and "Criticism" might make more sense.
Accedietalk to me05:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Hmm, that's a good point. I think the difference between this and the example given in that guideline is a list of pros and cons that are subjectively evaluated and spuriously added to either the pro and the con category ("I like feature X, this secondary source likes feature X, therefore I'll put it in the 'Pro' section for this article"), in contrast to a neutrally curated list of positive and negative reception/reactions to something like a piece of art, literature, or other by-nature subjectively received cultural items. But maybe that's just splitting hairs :) Anyway, there's probably a better logical way to split those two sections up; the distinction between "Categorization" and "Appraisal" just feels too murky to me.
Accedietalk to me05:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply