Talk:A Community of Witches/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]{[archive top}}
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 14:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
As a theoretical basis, Berger interprets Wicca as a religion of late modernity "As a theorectical basis" is not correct, try rephrasing.- Changed from "As a theoretical basis" to "In her work...". Thanks for highlighting this point Jezhotwells. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC))
- '
'Academic reviews were largely positive of the book, "positive of the book"? "Pagan", "Paganism" shouldn't be capitalaized.- Actually, in this case they really should be, because they refer to the modern religious movement rather than the older meaning of the word which used it for pre-Christian or non-Christian beliefs. The use of a capitalised "P" to refer to the modern phenomenon is well attested in the academic field of Pagan studies. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC))
- OK Jezhotwells (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
first became involved in the study of the Pagan movement in October 1986, when she gave a series of public lectures Surely she had researched before giving the lectures?- Quite right, I have changed this to "had initially become involved in the study of the Pagan movement in preparation for a series of public lectures that she gave at the Boston Public Library in October 1986." (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC))
"Witches" shouldn't be capitalized.- Again, in this instance they should be, because they refer to adherents of a modern religious movement. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC))
developing up a contact base in the community. "developing up"?Done I copy edited this. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)I believe this article would benefit from a thorough copy-edit by a third party. Word choice is poor, which makes much of the text hsrd to read and understand.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- I assume good faith for offline sources, statements appear to be adequately cited.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Good coverage of the subject
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Appears to be stable
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- One image used with a suitable non-free use rationale and caption.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I am placing this on hold until 2 January for the points above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, everything addressed, happy to list. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am placing this on hold until 2 January for the points above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: