Jump to content

Talk:Megan Phelps-Roper/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 00:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


My biggest concern is with the sourcing of this article, and how it relates to verifiability and NPOV. Almost all the cited sources here are interviews of the subject, profiles done with her co-operation, or in some cases the words of the subject herself (in the form of citing her ted talk or her tweets, for example). I think this creates a very real risk of making the article effectively "Megan Phelps-Roper according to Megan Phelps-Roper". It's okay to use (semi)primary/self-published sources like this judiciously, but if a large proportion of the article is only citable to such sources, I think that's a signal that the article should perhaps be condensed to focus more on information that's verifiable in independent RS. To take a somewhat random example from the article, a claim like:

Phelps-Roper considered leaving the church in April 2012 when the song "Just One" by Blind Pilot played on her stereo. She was reminded of her conversations with C.G., and the chorus's lyrics caused her to question the church's preaching tactics.

...really reads more like it belongs in a human-interest piece than an encyclopedia article. But if it is going to be included, it should probably be contextualized (e.g. "In a 2015 New Yorker profile, Phelps-Roper recalled...", or "Phelps-Roper has stated that she considered leaving the church in..."), rather than being stated as objective facts in wikivoice.

Curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Also, here are a few more low-level comments:

  • The introduction should provide some more context on WBC. Readers may not be at all familiar with the church, so the first paragraph should provide some context on what they're known for (i.e. their extreme beliefs and practices).
  • She picketed various events, including the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. I think this needs some clarification/context. I assume they weren't picketing during the attacks, but that's sort of what the sentence suggests.
  • and after a nine-person council became the church's decision-making body. This is hard to interpret without context (though it becomes clear in the body). Maybe instead of talking about the specific composition of the council, you could just say something like "and after a change in the church's governance"? Or "after the church moved to a more ___ decision-making process"? (insert appropriate adjective)
    •  Done
      • Nitpicking, but there's a bit of a parsing issue with the new version: Phelps-Roper began to doubt her beliefs when Twitter users pointed out contradictions in the Westboro Baptist Church's doctrine, and a change in the church's decision-making process. Readers might interpret this as saying that she began to doubt her beliefs when Twitter users pointed out ((contradictions in the Church's doctrine) and (a change in the church's decision-making process)). i.e. it makes it sound like the change in the decision-making process was another thing pointed out by Twitter users. (Which I assume is not the intent.) Colin M (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like nitpicking because it improves the article. Changed to, " Phelps-Roper began to doubt her beliefs when Twitter users pointed out contradictions in the Westboro Baptist Church's doctrine, and when elders changed in the church's decision-making process." Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite for marriage being in 2016? (Didn't see it mentioned in the sources cited in the body when talking about her marriage.)
    • minus Removed
  • Cite for date of birth?
  • At her baptism, Phelps-Roper began doubting the Westboro Baptist Church's theology. This should probably be cited. But it also seems like something of a non-sequitur relative to the preceding sentence.
    • minus Removed
  • In 2010, Phelps-Roper filed a lawsuit claiming that Nebraska's law against desecrating the American flag infringed on her free speech rights. This is an abrupt change of topic from the preceding content. Should maybe begin a new paragraph?
  • She thought that if church members lied about these protests, they could also be wrong about their church's doctrine AFAICT, this is not verified by the source cited
    • minus Removed
  • She publicly announced that she had left the church after finding out about the church's planned protest of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. There's a parsing ambiguity here. Does "after finding out about..." modify "left" or "announced"?

Colin M (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: I agree with your point that many of the sources are interviews with Megan and her perspective. Some of the longer sources also have comments from other involved parties, including members of the WBC. The shorter articles, particularly from her book tour, only speak from Megan's perspective. I will review the article later this week and try to remove information that goes into too much detail, which I hope will address some of the concerns. I'll also resolve the concerns you have listed above. I will ping you when I think the article is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, glad we're on the same page. Colin M (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin M: I conducted a copyedit and removed anything I felt was not NPOV or too much detail. I commented your comments above. Ready for a second look! Sorry for the delay. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second round of comments (07/12)

[edit]

No worries re delay - I see you've made a lot of changes! I think it's looking a lot better in terms of encyclopedic tone and NPOV. I just have a few fairly minor comments at this point:

  • In the late 2000s, Phelps-Roper sent messages to prominent Jewish Twitter users, calling for them to repent and stop their Jewish rituals before they were sent to Hell. David Abitbol responded by asking questions about her beliefs and engaging in theological discussions. This (or at least the last sentence) feels somewhat redundant with the first mention of Abitbol.
    • I removed the Abitbol's response in the activism section, but kept the messaging Jewish people sentence because I think it was part of her activism at the time. Z1720 (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She publicly announced that she had left the church after they announced their plan to protest the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. If possible, I think it would be helpful to provide a specific date for when she announced her departure.
    • I added Feb 2013 as a date. The source was not specific on when the announcement happened, so this is the closest I could get.
  • She is a member of Twitter's Trust and Safety Council Possible to get a better source on this and/or more details? Twitter's own page on the Trust and Safety Council says it's "a group of independent expert organizations". So I think saying that she's a member of the council is a dubious claim. More likely she's a member of an organization which is itself a member of the council? It would be helpful to have a source that's more than just a quote from Phelps-Roper herself saying that she's on the council.
    • Since I could not find more information about the council's composition, and I couldn't confirm with a Twitter source that she is on the council, I removed that sentence. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phelps-Roper believes that the Bible is not written by people under God's inspiration. I think it's a little unusual to say something like "X thinks Y" as a plain fact in wikivoice. Seems more conventional to use some form of attribution. e.g. "Phelps-Roper has stated...", "Phelps-Roper has described her beliefs as...", "According to Phelps-Roper...". Same goes for some other statements in this section, e.g. "She wants people to..."
  • Roper avoids using the word "cult" to describe the Westboro Baptist Church. This should be Phelps-Roper, right?
    • Fixed
  • Phelps-Roper encourages Twitter to disable bots and remove posts which advocate harm to others. The use of present-tense here seems a bit odd. "has encouraged" seems more natural IMO.
    •  Done
  • Not a requirement, just a suggestion: it could be helpful to incorporate a bit of context somewhere in the article about other members leaving the church. e.g. the 2011 Kansas City Star source (from before Phelps-Roper left the Church) includes this bit, which seems very relevant: Since 2004, 20 members have left the Westboro Baptist Church, three-fourths of them in their teens or 20s. The defections have left a sizable dent in the group’s third generation, which, for a church that has relied almost exclusively upon family to populate its congregation, is not an insignificant development.
    • I don't know if it should be mentioned in this article. Information about Grace leaving definitely belongs because Phelps-Roper and Grace left together, but general stats on how many members have left probably belongs in the WBC article. Z1720 (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin M (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round 3 (07/23)

[edit]

Thanks for the updates. A few more comments for the latest version:

  • and when elders changed in the church's decision-making process. Grammar/wording issue here
 Fixed
  • The intro still includes the claim of being on the twitter T&S Council
minus Removed
  • I think it would be ideal if the claim about working with law enforcement agencies could be sourced to a secondary source, rather than quotes from Phelps-Roper herself. I think it's sort of on the borderline of what's allowable per WP:ABOUTSELF. One could argue that it's a self-serving claim, in that it lends a certain aura of legitimacy or prestige.
minus Removed While there are sources that show she has spoken with law enforcement that are not from her perspective, the sources are not reliable enough to include. I also don't think this detail is important enough to include in the article at this time. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ceremony, which took place in the compound's swimming pool, included a profession of faith and concluded with Phelps-Roper becoming a full member of the church. Is this level of detail necessary?
minus Removed
  • Small thing: in the "Post-Westboro activism" you first refer to David Abitbol by just his surname, then by his full name in a later sentence. Either use one form consistently, or else the full name should be used first.
minus Removed
  • Looking at the 2019 Kansas City Star source, it doesn't seem like it quite verifies the claim that Phelps-Roper has stated that she has encouraged Twitter to disable bots and remove posts which advocate harm to others. The relevant quote from the source seems to be (quoting Phelps-Roper): There are things that Twitter as a company has to do, like dealing with bots and true threats of harm, things that are illegal. It seems like she's saying "Twitter should do X", which is different from "I've encouraged Twitter to do X". The latter suggests a call to action directed at Twitter, whereas the former is just a statement of her beliefs. It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's an important one.
Changed to, "Phelps-Roper believes Twitter should disable bots and remove posts that advocate harm to others."

Colin M (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin M: anything else to be fixed here? Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being MIA. I definitely haven't forgotten about this, I've just been struggling to decide what the next step should be. Ultimately I keep coming back to the issue that I raised at the very beginning. The article still overwhelmingly relies on citations to sources which are not independent of the article's subject. And so I still have concerns about how that affects NPOV. I've never encountered a situation like this before. I left a note at wikiproject biography to see if anyone had any pointers to GA/FA articles that rely in large part on interviews or profiles, but haven't got any responses yet. (I don't suppose you're aware of any examples?)
I'm sorry to say that I'm leaning towards a fail at this point, because I'm thinking that addressing the NPOV issue would require extensive changes (mostly in the form of cutting/compressing, but also in the way the material is presented, e.g. using more in-text attribution). Sorry, I didn't mean to string you along. I really was hoping that this could get to GA status following some of the changes suggested above - it was only after those were dealt with that I realized the NPOV issues were still there. Colin M (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin M: Thanks for your response. Would it be helpful to post in WT:GAN for a second opinion? There are lots of frequent GA reviewers that have it watchlisted and someone with more experience with this situation might comment. I'd like to hear second opinions, too to help inform future reviews that I will do at GAN. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm not really familiar with the protocol on this, but would definitely be interested in hearing another editor's perspective. Do you want to post the thread? Colin M (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better if you do because you can explain your concerns much more effectively than me. I don't want my bias towards the article to inadvertently mischaracterize the concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'm just a little unsure about whether it's actually the correct venue. I'm wondering if it would be better instead to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Asking_for_a_second_opinion? Colin M (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asking a second opinion might be better. Z1720 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydoke, I've flipped the GA status to 2ndopinion. To anyone who picks this up: hopefully the thread immediately above gives enough context, but feel free to ping me if I can clarify the reason for the request. Colin M (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I actually just created an article today based primarily on profiles/interviews (a first for me): Daniel Roseberry. It's a similar case to this one where profiles/interviews constitute the vast majority of RS coverage out there, so it's all you have to work with. I'm definitely not going to pretend it's an example of an article that meets the GA criteria in its current state, but I think it does at least represent an example of an article based on profiles that doesn't itself read like a profile. I tried to go for a 'just the facts' style tone, and deliberately omitted a lot of sourceable claims that were just "colour". e.g. little self-mythologizing anecdotes like "Roseberry first had the idea of becoming a fashion designer after attending a cousin's wedding in which the bride wore a vintage Carolina Herrera gown. He spent the four hour return trip sketching wedding dresses in the backseat of the family car." Or claims about the subject's emotional state or thoughts, e.g. he was nervous about designing his first collection, he was overjoyed when he saw Lady Gaga wearing his gown, he was unsure about what to do after leaving his job at Thom Browne, etc. These are all "verifiable" in the sources, but they're just not really encyclopedic IMO (or at least should be used very judiciously). Just food for thought. (Though of course it's not a perfect analogy, since a lot of what Phelps-Roper is notable for involves events from her personal life that happened out of public view, which is pretty different from a fashion designer.) Colin M (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have time for a proper second opinion, but wanted to chime in. I think that almost all articles should be able to reach GA status, even if the sourcing is too primary, and, like Colin says, neutrality should be achieved by attribution and omission. I feel the article is quite close to reaching that. My impressions
  • Her opinions on Twitter may have undue weight. Is "She is in favor of allowing people to choose whom they receive messages from and what posts appear on their feeds." improtant?
  • who convinced her to atone for, and fix, her mistakes, introducing her to a Jewish concept called tikkun olam, which involves working to improve the world -> attribute and shorten?
  • She stated that she did not want others to believe that her lack of response to the protest constituted tacit agreement with the church's actions -> implicitly clear?
  • Her date of birth is still in the infobox and in the category. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M and Femkemilene: I took a couple of days away from this article and read Daniel Roseberry's article to try to gain a new perspective. Afterwards, I did a copyedit of the article, removing passages that I felt were too much detail or not NPOV. This included removing most of the sections Femke outlined above. I hope you will take another look at the article. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think these were really good cuts/edits. I'm satisfied that the NPOV/level-of-detail issues have been resolved at this point, and that the article meets the GA criteria. But I'd like to give Femkemilene a chance to chime in before the review is closed. Incidentally, a few further suggestions from my latest readthrough (though these aren't requirements for GA):
  • pointed out contradictions in the church's doctrine - maybe a bit safer to describe them as "apparent contradictions" for NPOV purposes?
  • She was taught the Westboro Baptist Church doctrine, and at the age of 13, she was baptized as a member of the church. Is this important enough that it needs to be in the intro?
  • Phelps-Roper participated in the church's protests against homosexuality when she was five years old. Would it be clearer to say she participated in these protests beginning at age five? The way it's worded now sort of suggests she did it when she was 5 and then stopped.
Colin M (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin M: Comments above. Thanks for taking another look. Sorry that this GAN has taken so long. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 It's good! Since it's been a while and we haven't heard from Femkemilene (which is understandable - they said they didn't have time to give a proper 2nd opinion, and so I think they were just intending to dip in with some quick comments), I'm going to go ahead and pass this. As I said, the latest round of cuts/revisions have totally addressed my last remaining qualms about WP:GACRs 3b and 4. Thanks for being so incredibly patient with all these rounds of feedback and for being so open to suggestions. It was a long road to get here, but I think it was worth it! Colin M (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC) (btw, I listed this article in the "Religious figures" subsection of Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion. Which doesn't exactly feel like a perfect fit, but still seemed like the best available option. But feel free to move it if you think there's a better place it could be sorted.) Colin M (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megan_Phelps-Roper/GA1&oldid=1039633760"