Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mission Earth (novel)/archive1

FAC status marked as failed by MarcK (talk · contribs) on 13:31, 7 April 2006

---

Mission Earth (novel) (Contested — 19 Jun) - WP:FAC discussion

Self nomination, I think it satisfies all of the criteria except a picture (not really possible). Will interest anyone who wonders about those huge piles of Hubbard books in the remaindered and second-hand stores. A controversial topic, but not a controversial article - David Gerard 15:53, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note: There is a project called "Mission Earth", a computer simulation project, which will probably get an article some time (I'll try to do it today). As such, I've moved this to Mission Earth (novel) and fixed links - David Gerard 21:30, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:50, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It is usually ok to include a book cover as fair use. ✏ Sverdrup 18:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll find one and add it - David Gerard 18:51, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Cover scan added - David Gerard 10:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The article says, "The authorship of the novel is contentious."; if so, then the first line is POV: "Mission Earth is a ten-volume science fiction novel by L. Ron Hubbard".2) I'm not sure about this line from the plot synopsis; can we tweak it?: "Fleet Combat Engineer Jettero Heller, a character who is so perfect, incorruptible, and flawless that he makes James Bond look like a rank amateur." 3) Generally in the plot synopsis section, it's hard to tell whether certain sentiments are those expressed in the book or whether they have been injected by the writer of the synopsis: "Rock music is used in the novel to spread sexual deviancy, especially homosexuality, among the population of Earth.", "...two man-hating lesbians (who end up marrying Gris after he rapes them and thereby "cures" them of their lesbianism)" 4) Can we have the year of first publication after each volume in the "Volumes" section? — Matt 13:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 1. It is generally accepted that Hubbard wrote it, but the authorship has been questioned on the grounds stated. However, Young came forward and described the circumstances of the novel's production and his account is generally accepted by all except the CoS. Better wording suggestions are welcomed. 2, 3. User:Modemac wrote most of the plot summary - I'll try to invoke him here. I wondered about 2, but I'm pretty sure 3 is the way the book presents the opinions therein; I think it would be silly to put "The book says" all the way through the synopsis. 4. Added - David Gerard 14:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, the dates help. Maybe we need to tone down the questioning of the authorship instead, if it's generally accepted to by Hubbard's own work? e.g., rewording "many have doubted" and "contentious", and noting that it is generally accepted. On the other hand, maybe putting a parenthetical remark in the first paragraph would do it? — Matt 16:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Regarding the plot synopsis: The James Bond comment is indeed mine, and can be removed if you wish. The perfection and incorruptibility of the lead character is hammered `into the reader's head shortly after the beginning of the first book, so I don't think my comment is inappropriate. The bit about rock music, sexual deviancy, and man-hating lesbians is (unfortunately) spelled out in the books themselves, and they are not simply my conjecture. The lesbian stuff takes place between book 4 and 5, for instance.--Modemac 19:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Cut the James Bond bit - David Gerard 22:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry to hear that; personally, I thought it was sharp, good writing. Ah, 1911....[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Authorship section reworded and shuffled quite a bit; I think it's clear now - David Gerard 18:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• A fine article, but not yet brilliant. Object for now. The sections could be refactored - The psychology of Hubbard and Young;
  • This does not seem to be a specific actionable objection. Please ask for something in particular.
    • I meant here: the content about H&Y's psychology, about what Y said in his notes, etc -- content already in the article -- might be relegated to its own section rather than interspersed with the rest of the content.
• what Young said about Hubbard and in his notes;
  • RVY's stuff about what it was like to work with Hubbard belongs in L. Ron Hubbard, I would have thought. I'll go through again and see what can be added.
• and the new terminology coined in the novels and about them (the aside about "dekalogy") should find their own place in the article.
  • I'm not clear on what you mean by "should find their own place in the article." (see above. +sj+)
• The article feels incomplete. Is the synopsis one of the entire decalogue? Does it end without real conclusion? The article introduces a few characters, but there must have been many more over the course of the million words. Who were they?
  • It's a paralysingly slow-moving book. LRH had given up brevity; when you have thousands of followers who regard you as their messiah and give you all their money, it's hard to accept the need for editors. (That too belongs in the LRH article.)
    • Other excellent book articles tend to include a detailed discussion of major characters and locations, comparisons with other works by the same author (like your line about the kinder critics), etc. It might be helpful to have someone who enjoyed the books add content, since they tend to remember it in some detail. I don't mind an article that pans a book or series, but that makes it harder to qualify as an FA, since there is much less to say! +sj+
      • I felt panning it would violate NPOV; the NYT review summarises the critical reaction sufficiently IMO. As for finding fans of the book, I haven't managed to. This book appears to have no fan sites that aren't run by the CoS. If you know of one, please tell me! - David Gerard 01:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Listing the 10 books without any note as to their differences seems hasty, considering the brevity of the article.
  • They're ten slices of a single sausage. There's probably more to add to 'Authorship' on the slicing.
• What about non-critical public reaction to the novels?
  • This is mentioned - the non-Scientologists who read it largely hated it. The main reaction appears to be "why the hell are all these books in the remaindered bookstores?" but that's hard to put encyclopedically and it's answered.
• Thoughts of further distribution or movie rights? +sj+ 05:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No word of such. Nor do I don't feel it's right to write something claiming absence of something because I happen not to be able to find such; if you know of positive evidence of such, please point me at it - David Gerard 09:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Specific requests: Something more about what LRH was doing while composing the book? How his parallel work with the CoS at the end of his life influenced him; how this style of writing and these plot themes compare with other writing of his; comments from people working with him during those years other than Young (if possible! paraphrased from a CoS site?)...
  • There are a few other reports. He was "in seclusion", which means on the run from the law. He'd also fallen into a phenomenon called "guru trap", where a cult messiah is essentially a prisoner of his devoted followers. I'll see what I can turn up. - David Gerard 01:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Seems a bit thin, and relies too much on the Synopsis section. I would like a separate section to discuss (like above suggestions) characters, main themes and such; this is generally much more interesting than a resumé. ✏ Sverdrup 01:17, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • You really hate me, don't you. You want me to open the thing again. The things I may do for Wikipedia ... - David Gerard 01:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FAC status

So. Anyone else want to help go through the requests list and get it into shape for resubmission to WP:FAC in a few months? - David Gerard 01:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)