This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blown for Good article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Blown for Good has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 1, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the book
Blown for Good describes the author's experiences practicing the
Scientology technique
auditing with actor
Tom Cruise? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Blown for Good. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
This article bears little resemblance to the form it was when it was nominated 14 years ago, though at the time it had its own issues. For context, the article was created and largely written by someone who was 1) banned from this topic area for BLP and source misrepresentation, among other issues 2) later indefinitely banned. Afterwards the article had a chunk taken out of it, perhaps justifiably, but what is left does not meet the GA standards, and may still face the problems with POV that existed before.
An issue is particularly the incredibly short lead, which fails to sum up why the book is notable at all, not summarizing either its reception or contents (the old lead included this, though was perhaps too long) therefore failing criterion 1, and also parts of the summary have been changed for the worse to the point where I'm not sure it summarizes the book properly (failing criterion 3). PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I have the book if you want me to check anything for you. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 11:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
P.S. I see user Sfarney did a lengthy hatchet job on the article in 2016; I'll check those edits next (for example, here they give a false reason for removing content) ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 11:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)