Wikipedia:Peer review/Flying Spaghetti Monster/archive1

Flying Spaghetti Monster

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it may meet or be close to meeting the Wikipedia:featured article criteria. Thanks, Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Guy Macon
It is my intention to nominate this article as a featured article. Before I do that I want to correct any shortcomings that remain. In particular a featured article:

• Is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing.
• Meets all Wikipedia policies regarding content.
• Is well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
• Is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
• Is well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate.
• Is neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias.
• Is stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day.
• Follows the style guidelines.
• Has a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections.
• Has an appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
• Has consistent citations: consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing
• Has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, alt text when feasible, and clear acceptable copyright status.
• Has an appropriate Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

I would very much like to hear any opinions about whether the article meets the above criteria, and especially any flaws that I or the other editors working on the page can correct. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Mitch Ames

• The lead says "While generally praised by the media and endorsed by members of the scientific community, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has received criticism from ...". As worded this implies that the media and scientific community praise FSM. I suspect that the media and scientists praise the intent of the parody, eg that (like Russell's teapot) "the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims", not that they praise the deity itself. Some rewording of the sentence is required.
• The brief mention of pirates in the lead seems a little out of place. If it's sufficiently important to mention the correlation at all, it's probably worth noting (briefly) in the lead that the correlation between pirates and global warning is intended to demonstrate that correlation does not imply causation.

Fixed by me to read "Pirates are revered as the original Pastafarians (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian),[9] and Henderson asserts that the steady decline in the number of pirates over the years has resulted in global warming, alluding to the concept that correlation does not imply causation.[7]. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some of Flying Spaghetti Monster#Other developments should be moved up into Flying Spaghetti Monster#History, so that "other developments" only includes material not directly related to FSM. In particular:
  • The first paragraph (of this version, in case it changes) is very much about the FSM movement, so should be under "History".
  • The 3rd paragraph, about the Gospel, is directly related, not an "other development"
  • (Paragraphs 2 and 4, Boing Boing challenge, Kansas State Board of Ed's changing standards, are "other developments".)

Seems to have been fixed by others --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• It appears most or all of the entries under Notes are actually references. I suggest merging the Notes and References into a single References section. Possibly the single existing unnumbered entry under Reference ("The Gospel...") should be merged into the several numbered references to (specific pages in) the Gospel.

I've also copy-edited the article directly. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Very brief comments from Runfellow

Typically, I'd add more than this, but I'm a little short on time at the moment. Here are some brief comments:

• Although this article redirects from the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" to "Flying Spaghetti Monster", I'm of the opinion it should be the other way around. This article is in fact about the church (movement, whatever you want to call it), and not really about the "deity" itself. If this article was similar in content and structure to something like God in Christianity, I could go how it's named now. But it's really more like Christian Church. This has probably already been discussed elsewhere, however, so it's not a big deal.

I understand. I believe the decision was made because Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply "easier" and slightly more recognizable than Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (I feel silly every time I say that), but I see your argument.

• I don't know if it's fair to say "adherents state". The reference for this remark is the original website written by Henderson, not a third party source, and this is a common refrain. If it's just Henderson who comes up with the satire, then say Henderson. If it's unclear, I suppose "adherents" is probably acceptable. But if possible, there should be a third party source or poll that shows that "adherents" (or just fans) genuinely state or believe something before you can really claim they all do.
• Adding to Mitch's comments above, I'm always wary of the phrase "the media", because it generally includes more than what people think about when they hear the phrase. That said:
  • Do members of the media believe any differently than regular members of the public? If so, why? If not, why single them out?
  • The first reference links to an academic source, which doesn't really have to do with media per se.
  • Same thing goes for "generally praised by the media". Is "the media" (i.e. journalists) praising it, or are people using media outlets to praise it?
• I can't really figure out any reason to have an "other developments" subsection instead of simply creating a linear narrative.
• The "Supervolcano" reference used for the "thousands of followers" claim just cites the original website, including using quotes around "followers". There's no doubt that the concept has thousands (if not millions) of fans, but I'd take that word with a mighty grain of salt. Additionally, the source used for "primarily on college campuses and in Europe" says that they have thrived there, but doesn't say they are primarily there. Sounds like nitpicking, I know, but I don't think they're interchangeable.
• There's a section here on Henderson's books, but there's no mention of them in the lead.

Sorry I'd go more in depth, but I'm just fresh out of time. Runfellow (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'm still looking into much of it. Glad so much of the feedback is positive, constructive, and helpful (as is always the case, here)! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)