Wikipedia:Peer review/Brethren of Purity/archive1

Brethren of Purity

I split this article out from the main article, Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, and I'd like comments. Does the article contradict itself? (It's been evolving over a long period of time, with sources coming and going). Is it comprehensible to someone other than me the author? Does it read well? Are there things it glosses over or omits which are readily apparent? etc. --maru (talk) contribs 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several points:

The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. It provides context, but does not summarize. Information on the meetings probably belongs elsewhere.
The date given: do you mean 900s (the decade) or 10th century?
Extended remarks in parathenses make for more difficult reading.
What does "but it was evidence at second-hand until..." (under the quotation in "Identities") mean?

Otherwise: seems comprehensive and impressively well-referenced. -- bcasterline • talk 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have I addressed your concerns? --maru (talk) contribs 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; looks good. I'd also prefer changing the quotations from italics to normal font, and maybe using one of the quotation templates, but that might just be my personal preference. To answer some of your original questions: It's not light reading, but I think that's mostly because it's an esoteric subject -- not really a criticism. -- bcasterline • talk 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A wish easily granted. (And don't I know it's esoteric!) --maru (talk) contribs 01:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]