Talk:A Doomsday Reader

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Doomsday Reader/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 21:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 06:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Dibsing! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• "The first section focuses on secular apocalypses The third and final section..." I think, based on personal experience of doing it myself, that you forgot to finish your thought here
  • fixed. thought I proofread this more than I apparently had!
• If you want to be slick, you could probably trim "He had written a prior book on millennialism, Millennialism: An International Bibliography, in 1992." to "He published Millennialism: An International Bibliography in 1992" - from context, a reasonably intelligent reader will understand that it was his previous work and the topic. (But I won't die on this hill if you don't like it)
  • did that
• "Daniels was the editor and publisher,[3][6] and was the center of Daniels's effort" you can probably ditch the second "Daniels" for "his"
  • did
• I boldly moved a sentence up from para 2 of background to para 1
  • fine by me
• Suggest reorganizing para 2 - it feels odd to go the whole paragraph thinking it's a whole group only to find out he's the sole guy. Could you move that into sentence 1?
  • rearranged a bit
• Do we know the date when the Institute was founded? I'd add it if available
  • I couldn't find it in any source that mentioned the book. I started writing an article for Daniels himself at one point (I thought he wasn't notable when I made the article so I redirected his name here, but I was wrong), and I think that would be necessary for the article on Daniels but might be superfluous here. It might be in a source about him that doesn't mention the book, so I could try to see if you think it's good context
    • Ehh I think at FAC I might push but not needed here
• Para 3 has "published" 3 times in 3 successive sentences; I'd suggest writing around if possible
  • rewrote
• "he says that the book will remedy the defect" - this feels a bit editorial, or perhaps it's a close paraphrase from the source? either way, I think it could be restated more plainly [yeah - on spot check I see it is a statement direct from the book, so I'd restate]
  • changed it
• "In an introduction ... In the book's first chapter" There's no introduction listed in the chapter list. Are these one and the same then?
  • yes, clarified
• "Some texts in the volume were not available elsewhere" I assume this means "publicly available elsewhere prior to publication in this book" - maybe add "publicly" at least?
  • Did something like that.
• "Texts are generally aimed" I'm not sure aimed is the word here. "selected from"?
  • Aimed was definitely not the word I was trying to use... went with selected from
• "secular manifestations of apocalypticism from Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, and environmentalism." suggest a slight rephrase to something like "from the writings of Karl Markx, Adolf Hitler, and the environmental movement"; it's currently slightly jarring to go from two dudes to a wide ideology
  • did that
• "includes those based around conspiracy" presuming "those" here refers to "manifestations of apocalypticism" but suggest a tweak for readibility
  • more selections; tried to rephrase
• " controversial and notorious" pick one, I think
  • picked one
• Why do only some of the chapter details bits have refs?
  • I did it when there was a secondary source that summarized it or when there was a direct quote from the book. I can add citations from the book to the rest of the summaries if you think that would be good.
    • Ahh, I see the logic here. I think you're probably good then, on the same grounds that book plots don't need citations
• " Daniels recounts claimed influences on his views and analyzes his views" -> " Daniels recounts claimed influences on and analyzes his views"?
  • changed
• " He planned to write multiple, for the seven seals" I think I would expand here slightly? "he planned to write one for each of the seven seals described in the Christian Book of Revelation" maybe?
  • did something like that
• "A textbook from the sovereign citizen movement group, which became embroiled in a standoff with the FBI, which recounts their religious ideas." -> suggest "A textbook recounting the religious ideas of a sovereign citizen movement group known for their involvement in a standoff with the FBI"? as a bit more straightforward
  • changed
• " Heaven's Gate, which committed mass suicide" - "whose members", not "which", I think (or "the members of which")
  • Changed
• "John Bugge for Utopian Studies praised the book, Daniels's analysis throughout, and the bibliography" - "the book" here feels redundant since the book basically consists of the analysis and the reprinted texts
  • removed
• "Bugge praised its inclusion of the texts..." this sentence says "text[s]" three times - can it be written around?
  • trimmed
• "Daniels's point ... was a point" another repeated word (and followed by "pointed" in the next sentence albeit in a different context; still)
  • removed
• "Bugge praised its inclusion of the texts of the more obscure sects,..." and "Bugge complimented his selection..." these sentences feel somewhat redundant to one another, and it's not clear why they're split up to surround Howard rather than put together
  • I think breaking up a lot of sentences by one author making a bunch of different points can at times make a reception section read better. However, now that you pointed it out, this is basically just two ways to say the same thing, so I cut one

Spot check

Since there are so few individual sources, I grabbed the first couple that came up on a search rather than having a list generated.

• Bugge - all refs check out
• Howard - same
• Nelson - same

Since I've found no issues here and that's 25% of the sources cited, I'm satisfied. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• So so sorry for my late response! I thought I watched the review but I didn't and so I was waiting for you to start your comments when you already had! I'll get on these. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  All addressed except for the detail on the founding date and the summary citations. I'm willing to address both of those in the way you suggested I just wanted to give my thought on why I did it that way first. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Nope, all looks good to me, happy to promote. Cheers on another fine piece of work! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.