Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ThorLives (talk · contribs) 01:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made many complaints on the talk page, but the main problem is neutrality. The article, as presently constituted, draws almost exclusively from the work of left-wing Norse pagans, many (like Dr. Snook) have been expelled from mainline groups such as the Asatru Folk Assembly. I attached a tag challenging the neutrality of the article, but it was deleted by the same person who rewrote the entire article.

The present article also contains many errors of fact. I would correct them, but my edits on this article have all been deleted by the person who rewrote it. Example: the word for one of the souls is typically hugr--not hugh. (Norse pagans use Old Norse terms) --ThorLives (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect, User:ThorLives, you probably wouldn't be eligible to be the GA reviewer for this article. Under the Instructions for GANs, it states that a reviewer must not "have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review", whereas of course you have been a longstanding and regular contributor to it. Further, the fact that you and I have had various disagreements regarding the content of the article over the past few months (to the extent that I have had to initiate RFCs and call in other editors as arbitrators) means that you are far from being un-involved. You very clearly have a strong opinion on what you want this article to look like and how you want Heathenry to be represented within it, and perhaps you see the GAN process as another platform in which to push for your desired changes (which have otherwise been repeatedly rejected by other editors, for reasons that have been explained to you on multiple occasions). In truth, the fact that you have also repeatedly shown a conscious disregard for Wikipedia policies and engaged in disruptive editing, to the extent that you attempted to "out" my identity on the talk page, also does not fill me with confidence that I can a get fair and balanced review of this article from you. Moreover, from what I can see, you have never before conducted a GA review and on that point too I would prefer it if it were dealt with by an experienced editor who really is up to scratch on the encyclopedia's policies and criteria. Thus, I have decided to terminate this particular nomination and renominate this article in order to wait for an un-involved and experienced editor to carry out the review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)