Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 14:06, 25 August 2012 [1].

The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic

[edit]

The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because it has already gone through both peer review and a successful GA review, and I am now confident that it fits all of the FA criteria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Crisco 1492
  • I feel sorry for you; 11 days and no comments
File:Archaeology of Ritual and Magic.jpg looks acceptable, but {{Non-free use rationale book cover}} would be better
File:Sator Square at Oppède.jpg looks fine
File:Swinside (p4160146).jpg looks okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comments: Are you sure that's all the sources you can find? I count six, including the book itself. Enough to show notability, but I'm not sure it's comprehensive. Also, the one-sentence paragraph in #Wider recognition should probably be merged somewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Crisco; admittedly, this is a rather obscure page, so I'm not too surprised that not many editors have left comments. As far as I can gather, the sources I have used are comprehensive; I have scoured Google Books for further references but have found none. In other news, I shall make the corrections that you suggest regarding the book image and the "Wider recognition" section. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • comment I've read the article and fixed a couple of spelling errors added a link when I stumbled upon a term I didnt readily recognise. To me it read as comprehensive coverage of the book though it could have some additional information about the author given theres no article. The section Reception and recognition could either be expanded or the two subsection be merged as that contributes the feeling that its struggling to be comprehensive, especially without an introduction paragraph before them. Altogether I think theres sufficient for this to be promoted even if it hasnt recieved a large number of reviews Gnangarra 08:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    highlighting as theres been no response Gnangarra 14:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Supported belowFor an article of this size, the lead should probably only be two or three paragraphs. Will try to do a full review this week.
  • "Looking at the evidence for foundation deposits in European buildings which likely had magico-religious purposes, he then looks at several examples of written charms and spells which have survived in the archaeological record." There's some repetition of "look" here.
  • "in rivers and other water-places" I'd suggest "in bodies of water".
  • There's some repetition of "discuss" in the lead too.
  • "In ensuing years, the book has been widely cited" By whom? (I presume scholars, maybe scholars and journalists).
  • I think the background section is pretty good, the bits about the Air Force and Ghana seem extraneous to me though.
  • "She opined that it should be read by every archaeologist as a corrective to their widespread ignorance of folklore" Is the bit about ignorance of folklore her opinion, or a settled fact? If it's just her opinion it should probably be noted as such. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I'd like to keep the information on the Air Force and Ghana in place; fair enough, it's not particularly relevent to the article in question, but it helps to build up a greater picture of Merrifield, who doesn't have an article of his own (yet). Your other suggestions all sound fine to me, I'll go through and implement them. Thanks Mark. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm close to supporting, I think there is a little more copy editing needed on the synopis section first though.
  • You probably want to link "Votive" again in the body, maybe add a few words of explanation too.
  • Watch for repetition of "look" throughout the synopsis.
  • There's some repetition of "both" in the third paragraph.
  • "He examines Late Medieval and Post-Medieval finds of items deposited in rivers, including swords and pilgrimage souvenirs, speculating that it might be a survival from the pagan tradition of casting votive offerings into water." Is "finds... it" correct here?
  • In the 5th paragraph you start three consecutive sentences with "He..."
  • You use "moves on to..." or "goes on to..." a few times, you might be able to tighten it up by removing some of them, i.e. "He then goes on to discuss" -> "He then discuses" Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discusses the use of the written word in magical contexts. Discussing" Some repetition here.
  • Should this be hyphenated? "19th and 20th century examples"
  • "The seventh chapter is entitled "Charms against witchcraft", and deals with archaeological evidence for a variety of Early Modern and Modern British spells designed to ward off malevolent witchcraft. After briefly dealing" Some repetition here, "deals... dealing" Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ok, I'm willing to support on prose/MOS/presentation now. No comment on comprehensiveness of sources, though. I'm still not sure about the Ghana/Air Force bits, but I'll defer to the rest of the reviewers on that one. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Johnbod On the whole one would rather see articles on the subjects of books of this type than the books themselves at FA, especially when the book is now 25 years old. The lead says "Upon publication, The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic received predominantly positive reviews in academic peer-reviewed journals such as Folklore and The Antiquaries Journal. In ensuing years, the book has been widely cited by scholars as an influential and pioneering text in the study of the archaeology of ritual and magic." but the rather thin crop of examples given below arguably don't really support this; more would be welcome. Has the book ever been reprinted? 2nd edition? Is it still in print? Can its citation by other authors be quantified, as you can in the sciences? Note that the references in their entirety amount to: a) the book itself, b) the author's obituary by a colleague, c) 3 other mentions by other writers, one an "independent researcher". Otherwise seems ok. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, an article on the topic of the archaeology of ritual and magic would be more important than this particular article, but it would be a particularly difficult article to produce to a good standard. I can confirm that this book has not been republished, and is certainly not in print anymore, but this is not too unusual when it comes to academic texts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Archaeology_of_Ritual_and_Magic/archive1&oldid=1077421955"