Talk:Jex Blackmore/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: ProfGray (talk · contribs) 03:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 15:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'm happy to take this on for review, as part of Women in Green's edit-a-thon and the GAN backlog drive. Thankyou for submitting this during the previous WiG and apologies it has taken this long for a review to materialise. I hope you choose to continue participating in the GAN process in the future! I first became aware of Blackmoore after their controversial ousting from TST, so I'm interested to learn more about them, particularly their performance art and other activism. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Early life and education

Spotcheck: [1] Verified everything but the birth date. Is there another source we can cite to confirm this as Blackmore's birth date?
Do you know of any other sources that can be cited for this information? As interviews with the subject of an article aren't independent sources, it's best to cite independent, secondary sources if they exist. (Although this information is relatively non-controversial, so I won't push this if there aren't better sources for this)
Blackmore's CV is not a reliable source, it should be cut and any information drawn solely from it (i.e. graduation and the degree being in archaeology) should be removed.
Spotcheck: [4] Verified all but their graduation with a BA in classical archaeology.
As an aside, their studies in art history seem more relevant to their overall biography than their apparent studies in archaeology.
The date you accessed this article (access-date) and a wikilink to Hyperallergic should be provided in the citation.

Satanism

Do we know when Blackmore joined TST or when the Detroit branch was founded?
- Cited source says they established the branch in August 2014 after meeting Greaves in Boston, so this detail should be included.
Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
Wikilink to ABC News (United States) in the citation.
"Blackmore was a member of the Satanic Temple (TST) as founder and leader of the active chapter in Detroit" Bit of an oddly structured sentence. I think this could be trimmed down to "Blackmore was the founder and leader of the Detroit chapter of the Satanic Temple (TST).
"and organized the first public unveiling" Start a new sentence here, so "They organized [...]"
Spotcheck: [6] Verified all but this being the "first public unveiling". Is there another source that confirms this being the first time?
Access date and wikilink to Time (magazine) should be provided in the citation.
I think Blackmore's interpretation of the monument, seen it Time and ABC News, would be an interesting thing to include.
Citations [5] and [7] are for the same source, so they should be merged.
If the unveiling of the Baphomet statue took place in July 2015, then it should be mentioned after the December 2014 nativity demonstration, in order to maintain chronology.
Wikilink to MLive Media Group in the citation.
Spotcheck: [8] Verified all except the interpretation of the nativity scene.
- "alluding to the fall of man and the Genesis creation narrative of the snake and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" While this is a likely interpretation, it is still a novel interpretation, as this isn't provided in the cited source. If a source can't be found, this should be cut.
Reactions to the nativity stunt and Blackmore's own comments on it may be worth including.
Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
"a response to that year's anti-abortion National Day of Protest: a piece of political theatre:" The double colon is a very odd use of punctuation. Give this a rework.
Specify that this happened in August 2015, for chronology's sake.
This is a very long unattributed quote from the Vice article. This should be rewritten in summary style, and in your own words.
Wikilink to Vice Media in the citation.
Worth adding that this stunt was specifically in response to an attack ad against Planned Parenthood, as well as a summary of Blackmore's comments.
"In the Detroit version, Blackmore held up a sign, "America is not a theocracy. End forced motherhood."" Considering this is just a sign, and it's cited to an image gallery on their own website, I think this can be removed.
Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
Can you summarise this quote from Blackmore?
"criticized Satanism as sexist" This implies they are criticising Satanism as a whole, rather than a specific branch of it.
There's a good deal more in this source about Blackmore's feminist satanism, which might be worth discussing in this article.
Spotcheck: [13][14] Detail about it not being endorsed by TST is only in the Vice source, and the quote is only in the Journal of Communication Inquiry source. These citations should be moved in line with the specific information they're verifying, rather than bundled together.
"Scholars termed their effort as a grotesque protest" What scholars? Specific attribution is needed, especially if we're directly quoting Kristin Marie Bivens and Kirsti Cole.
Wikilink to Journal of Communication Inquiry in citation and add an ISSN.
There's more detail in the JCI source that could be included.
Remove the citation to the documentary and Blackmore's own website.
"resigned from or was removed from" Which was it? The Journal for the Study of New Religions says they resigned; Word & Way says TST "cut ties" and "parted ways" with Blackmore, which is quite different from being removed from it.
When in 2018 did this happen? JSNR says they resigned in March 2018.
Provide an ISSN for the Journal for the Study of New Religions.
"statements deemed too extreme" Deemed too extreme by whom?
Spotcheck: [15][11] Quote is from Word & Way, detail about their resignation is from JSNR. Citations should be moved inline with the information they're verifying, rather than bundled together at the end.
Is the name "Subversive Autonomous" important to include? Would "During a performance" suffice?
Can you summarise this quote from Blackmore?
What does TST think about Blackmore saying all this? Their perspective should probably be referenced for the sake of balance.
What was the debate between Blackmore and the WBC about?
Spotcheck: [19] Verified.

Abortion rights

Spotcheck: [20] Verified all but the specific date. Is the November 26 date somewhere I'm missing?
Wikilink to Cosmopolitan (magazine) in the citation.
Spotcheck: [21] Verified.
Wikilink to Dazed
Why is this TST protest mentioned here and not in the previous section? The other performance pieces here seem to be unaffiliated with TST, so I'm just wondering.
Spotcheck: [22] Verified.
"One hundred pounds of rotten fruit while awaiting her second abortion, in which they were pelted with one hundred pounds of rotten fruit" The description is repetitive with the title of the piece. I think one or the other can be trimmed.
Wikilink to Ms. (magazine) in the citation.
"In a performance art journal, Blackmore wrote," Citation? What performance art journal was this?
Spotcheck: [23] Verified.
I think this could be moved up before the quote.
"Blackmore took an abortion medication" Think it should say "took abortion medication"
Spotcheck: [22][24] Verified.
What was the reaction to them taking an abortion pill on live tv? From the host or otherwise?
This Washington Post quote can easily be summarised.
Wikilink to The Washington Post in the citation.
Spotcheck: [25] Verified.
Provide publication date and a wikilink to Metro Times in the citation.
Did this campaign have an effect? What was the response?

Film and performance art

Remove the citation to Blackmore's own website.
Spotcheck: [27][28] Verified, although the quote about the "satanic jeremiad" is only in The New Republic.
Wikilink to Variety (magazine) and The New Republic in the citations.
Is this Ann Arbor demonstration covered anywhere other than Blackmore's own website? If so, then we should be citing those independent sources. If not, then this event may not have been notable enough to include.
Spotcheck: [30] Verified.
Can we summarise these unattributed quotes?
What's the publication date for the CURA article?
Spotcheck: [32] This text is a bit too close for comfort to the text in the Reader source, especially when there's a part of it in quotation marks but the rest is also more or less identical to the source.
Ditto, is this performance mentioned anywhere other than Blackmore's own website? If not, this should probably be removed.
Spotcheck: [35][36] Verified quote in AA FilmFest website. Can we summarise it?
Spotcheck: [37] Verified.
Again, best not to be citing Blackmore's own website.
"Blackmore has dabbled in spoken word performance, too, teaming up with singer Lydia Lunch when she visited Detroit in April 2022. Citation?

Personal life

My Recipes article is dead. An archived link should be provided, as should an access date.
"their cat named for a goat in The Witch," What is the cat/goat called?
Unclear how the latter two sentences of this are about their personal life.
Spotcheck: [21] Verified.

Lead and infobox

No notes.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I think this article has issues that are preventing me from passing it, but I think they could be fixed with a bit of work.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
A couple areas where grammar and punctuation could be tightened up.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
All good on manual of style front.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Some sources should have access dates provided, one includes a dead link that needs archival.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Some parts where citations are bundled, rather than being cited inline with the information they're verifying. Many citations are to Blackmore's own website, in situations where an independent, secondary source would be preferable.

C. It contains no original research:
One clear case of novel interpretation.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
One place where it gets a bit too closely paraphrased for comfort, but otherwise no clear cases of plagiarism or copyvio.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
All main aspects I'd expect to be addressed are, although there's a couple places I think more detail could be added.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Very focused, no issues here.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I think other perspectives could be provided in places, in order to maintain balance.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
There were a series of reverted edits by IP users in May 2024, but otherwise all good.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All images were granted permission for use by Blackmore.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
All images are relevant, depicting the subject and events mentioned. Ideally alt text should be provided.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article still needs work, but I think with a bit of TLC it could well get to meeting the GA criteria. Ping me when you feel you have addressed everything or if you need clarification and I'll be happy to give it another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]