Talk:A Community of Witches

GA Review

{[archive top}}

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

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage of the subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appears to be stable

6. 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.

7. 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)