Talk:Interview with Glen Stollery of ScienTOMogy.info
Good luck getting an interview published on Wikinews. Does it ever happen? I'm thinking of the current debacle of the Frugalware interview, which was once recommended for deletion. When that failed and it was published, it has now been retracted by disputing it.
--67-21 07:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just make whatever improvements you can and republish the Frugalware Linux story. There have been no outstanding issues mentioned on the story discussion section for days. Karen 05:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Original reporting notesEdit
This article was prepared at Wikinews:Questions_for_interview_with_Glen_Stollery_of_ScienTOMogy.info. That page and it's corresponding talk page contain information about the original reporting that took place, and the raw interview responses. - Borofkin 01:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Copy editing was sorely neededEdit
The interview transcript needs a copy edit. Please be sure to give it a good read and edit before publishing. Karen 05:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
A few examples of issues that should be addressed before publishing:
- Technical terms such as LGAT (large group awareness training) and CCHR (Citizens Commission on Human Rights) are expanded, but terms such as "church OT material", "add/adhd" (What do these mean, or is it the word "add" over "add" with a typo?), "60 minutes" (A length of time or a proper noun?), and "RTC" (the company that actually owns all Scientology's trademarks) could use expanding/explaining (or maybe just a Wiki link or reference?) really need more description and/or better copy editing.
- The suggestion that the person being interviewed has challenged the legality of the cease and desist ("You've decided to challenge the legality of the cease and desist.") is unsupported. It seems to me that the validity is all that was tested, just by ignoring the cease and desist.
- Simple copy editing needs to be done better to avoid phrases like "of the meds and take vitamins and exercise".
- A lot of missed Wikilinks for better explaination by lay-persons would be very effective. Terms like "Langham Act" and "Occam's Razor" (to name a few) should have active links.
- Breezing over details that the interviewer should have researched or asked later, such as "What two lawyers/firms did you consult?" Having details that could be verified would lend much credibility to the story the person being interviewed is telling.
- Why even state the question Wikinews: Why attack Scientology rather than other cult-like religions? when it's been "discussed above"?
- Bold and italics are available in this media: "going INSIDE the cult" could be "going inside the cult." "**reportedly** due to" could be reportedly due to", and "the SAME DAY" could be "the same day" (both in that section where the transcript seems to repeat itself).
And little things, like html in lower case make the copy look shabby.
Give the copy a good reworking and it should look and read a lot better. Karen 05:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- I added links to Lanham Act, church OT material" & "Occam's Razor" Jeff Carr 03:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not sure I agree it's necessary to inquire into a persons choice of consul in this case. (ie: What two lawyers/firms did you consult?). Jeff Carr 03:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering about the lawyers, not a crucial detail but does lend credibility to the story, if named. I'd name them if I were being interviewed, especally if the laywers worked pro bono publico. I have no disagreements with the content, just the copy-editing - and I didn't have enough time to work on it earlier today. Karen 05:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I addressed all the other issues I had, and those similar. It's embarrassing to have spelling errors in the interview questions and responses. Viacom only has one M - it was inconsistently spelled throughout the story. I know there might have been some regional spellings, hopefully I only corrected those which were incorrect anywhere in the World. The biggest issue with the story was that the emailed responses were pasted without editing for clarity, making reading the interview more difficult. Feel free to correct more or revert any of my edits that were not made in good judgement. Karen 06:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)