Article about an American rocket scientist who is both recognized as a pioneer in 20th century engineering an an icon of modern occultism. The recommendations of the first FA review have been followed rigorously. We have expanded the article's reference body (including academic sources) to avoid over reliance on the Carter and Pendle sources and written more detailed descriptions of the scientific aspect of the subject's career. A copyedit by User:Chaosdruid has also significantly improved and provided a firm grounding for the clarity of its prose. I believe that this article now meets the FA standard. JJARichardson (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it isn't necessary to include "(pictured)" in the caption
File:Parsons_Kynette.jpg: why the EU template for a US image? Also, what steps have you taken to determine whether the original publication included a copyright notice? Same for File:1952_0618_parsons.jpg
File:Marjorie_Cameron.jpg: source and licensing given are questionable. Getty Center attributes this image to the Cameron Parsons Foundation; it seems unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder, and unlikelier still that the image was their original creation. I have flagged this image on Commons for permissions issues, but if you have any more information about earlier publication that would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really enjoyed reading this article. I want to see it on the front page. It is the kind of work that we should be doing. Having read the support, you can switch off now, but I do have some quibbles to prove that I did read it.
Consider removing the pixel sizes from the images. They all look like postage stamps on my screen, and may look funny on mobile devices. Removing the sizes will make them default to the users' preferences.
Done this.
The lead should be a summary of the text, and should stand separate from it. Could the abbreviation for Ordo Templi Orientis be provided with its first link? (Do we need the OTO abbreviation?)
Same applies to JPL, which appears as an abbreviation on its first use in the body.
The lead now reads "In 1942 they founded Aerojet to develop and sell their JATO technology; the GALCIT Rocket Research Group became JPL in 1943." I assume this what you meant.
The first reference to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Ordo Templi Orientis in the article body have the abbreviations prefixed as in the lead. The legacy/influence section refers to "Jet Propulsion Laboratory" simply because it is a more readable flow within the sentence. JJARichardson (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Direct quotes should be immediately followed by the source.
Following this is slightly problematic, such as with the block quote in 1.2 resulting in the reference being shown awkwardly below the quote. It seems arbitrary to repeat references when the reader can clearly refer to those applied to the paragraphs. To be frank I'm leaning on WP:IAR with this one.
Duplicate links: castable, Karl Germer, Cleve Cartmill, Jack Williamson, The Book of the Law, Ordo Templi Orientis, socialism, communism, American Communist Party, Joseph Stalin, Red Scare, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Note -- Tks all for comments. Looks like we still need a source review for formatting and reliability -- if any of the reviewers above feel they can take that, pls do, otherwise I'll post a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after performing a source review. In general the citations are quite a mess and need consistency. I'm also concerned about the use of the Parsons book as noted below.
"Retrieved" dates for web sources are not consistently formatted (for example, fn 1 and fn 24).
Fn 12, the publisher should be Hearst, no italics.
Changed to Hearst Corporation.
Fn 24 and 28, here you have citations to articles from the same work formatted in different ways.
Fixed to them having the same web reference format. Also bear in mind that the former is an interview with the subject (Malina) and the latter an article by him.
Several of the web citations are missing publishers
All of the web citations now follow a URL/publisher format.
Dates for web citations are not consistently formatted (for example, fn 12 and fn 68)
Fn 179, specify that subscription is needed. The URL resolves to a subscription page.
I wasn't aware that Fortean Times had become a subscription-only website. This citation being removed won't harm the informativeness of the article. JJARichardson (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fn 193 seems to be a broken or bogus site—please provide an archive link.
I'm troubled by your citing things other than basic facts and quotations to Parsons' own works. For example, you have statements like "Parsons became a vocal social libertarian" and "championed the libertarian social views of some of the Founding Fathers of the United States" sourced to his own writings. That's Not Good.
I've rewritten this to "Influenced by Thelema—which holds to the ethical code of "Do what thou wilt"—Parsons championed the libertarian views of some of the Founding Fathers of the United States in his article "Freedom is a Lonely Star"..." I hope this is adequately neutral. JJARichardson (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're doing OK here now. The crux of my concern is that any time you introduce writing that could possibly be considered analytical, we need a secondary source. I've stricken my opposition above. --Laser brain(talk)18:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In light of your comments, I've rewritten the end paragraph of the political section to "Science fiction writer and occultist Robert Anton Wilson described Parsons' political writings as exemplifying an "ultra-individualist" who exhibited a "genuine sympathy for working people..." This indicates his comments are an analysis of the writings explored beforehand. I've also noted the academic credentials of Cashill and Urban. Thanks for your support! JJARichardson (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly surprised and confused by this. A summarized description of literary works, putting them into context, is perfectly common on Wikipedia, and in this case also being referred to is other analysts such as Wilson and Cashill. I will see what I can do though. JJARichardson (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one caveat. I agree with Laser_brain that "championed the libertarian social views of some of the Founding Fathers of the United States" is not adequately sourced if that is just to his own writings. You should be able to rewrite that and make it work. Overall, I think the prose flows very well, it seems to be comprehensive, and the sourcing satisfied me. I did not check the images. Karanacs (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten it to "Parsons was politically influenced by Thelema—which holds to the ethical code of "Do what thou wilt"—equating this principle to the libertarian views of some of the Founding Fathers of the United States..." I hope that's acceptable. JJARichardson (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
