Talk:Temple of Set/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting. Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could explicitly say (perhaps with bold text) that worshippers are referred to as Setians? Compare the first mention of Muslim in our article on Islam.

• Great idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "the number of Temple memberships" is a slightly odd construction. I certainly understand what is meant, though.

• Another good point. Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "the scholar Kennet Granholm argued that it should not" Ambiguous- what should not what?

• Ah - fair point. I've gone with "Conversely, the scholar Kennet Granholm argued that it should not be considered a form of Satanism because it does not place an emphasis on the figure of Satan.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• You have a linking error in footnote 9.

• Well spotted! Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "In this tract, teachings about the creation of the world, God, and humanity are presented, while also conveying a dualistic idea of Satan complementing God" Shift in tense/subject

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Repetition of "In this tract"

• I've removed this second appearance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "had both misunderstood its origin and message" I assume you mean "had misunderstood both its origin and message"?

• Indeed! Well spotted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "In doing so, Aquino presented himself" In doing what? This needs to be clarified.

• I've replaced this with "In making reference to The Book of the Law," Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Aquino expressed obsession with" How about "Aquino displayed an obsession with"?

• That's a definite improvement. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "who then presented Xem as his Aeonic Word to the Setians" I think this needs more explanation; I'm not really sure what is being claimed.

• This is a sentence that was recently added by another editor (sadly I don't have access to Granholm's 2014 book; Brill does like to publish its work well above my price range!). I will see what I can do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have now moved the discussion of Xem to a more appropriate location of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• "as a natural and necessary further development of Aquino's Xeper" This is the first mention of Xeper.

• Similarly, this isn't my contribution and I don't have access to the source in question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have also moved this to a point in the article after the section in which Xeper is introduced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• "aspects of Satanic philosophy with the modern Pagan religion of Heathenry" Just double-checking that you definitely mean Satanic and not Setian?

• Yes, this one should be "Satanic" as opposed to "Setian". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria" Are those capitals necessary?

• It looks like our actual article on the subject uses the lower case so I shall change this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Amid the hysteria, in the United Kingdom tabloids like the News of the World and Sunday Mirror produced sensationalist coverage of the group." This needs cleaning. I was also a little worried about BLP concerns, but the discussion seems proportional and it is sourced to a highly reliable (in the Wikipedia sense) source.

• I've gone with "In the United Kingdom during this same period, tabloids like the News of the World and Sunday Mirror published sensationalist articles about the Temple". I too considered BLP issues but as you say, this is well referenced to Reliable Sources, which don't shy away from discussing the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to hear a little more about the happenings this century; the schism and the backing-and-forthing. You mention a Patricia Hardy further down the article; she might be a useful addition to the history section. And who leads the organisation right now?

• Hmm. I'm finding this a little difficult. I've pretty much exhausted the Reliable Sources that I have access to and they don't deal with these more recent events, instead focusing on the early history of the Temple. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps for such uncontroversial(?) factual material as who's in charge, we could rely on a primary source? Josh Milburn (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• "However he criticised the latter as "fraud and/or self-delusion" which deceives the consciousness into thinking that it has been accepted in the objective universe." It's not clear to me what the latter or it refer to, here.

• I've swapped "latter" to "white magic" although I've left the "it" — which refers to the consciousness — in place, because I'm not sure what synonym to use on that count. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• You have a couple of instances of small-s-satanic. Is this deliberate, or does it need fixing?

• In one instance it is because of a direct quote, but in the two other examples I have replaced the small-s with a large one. It seems that there is some discrepancy in the literature on the subject; some favour the lower case in certain situations but others don't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "serves as a space to mutual evaluation" Is this grammatically sound?

• I've corrected this to "for mutual" Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder if the full version of the photo of Webb, seeing as it also has the Schrecks, might be preferable?

• Good idea! I've swapped the image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• If this was at FAC, I'd say that the "Pylons, elements, orders and conclaves" section is a bit choppy, but I'm not concerned for GAC purposes.
• Again, if this were at FAC, I might quibble with the UK-focus in the demographic section. However, I'm happy for GAC.

• I agree, it is a little UK-centric, but I can't find any reliable sources discussing the demographic aspects of the Temple in the US, at least at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to have a good look at the sources and images, but that's enough for now. My first impression is that this is a strong article which I will almost certainly be promoting soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And please double-check my light copyediting. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that I have dealt with all of the issues raised, Josh. Do let me know if there is anything else. Moreover, thank you very much for taking the time to give this article a read through and for producing the review in the first place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Great- I want to have a closer look at the images and sourcing, and I'll check up on a few bits of the text. I'll aim to get to it this weekend. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, looking at sources...

• The link in footnote 48 is broken. (I have a script that spots this for me; see User:J Milburn/common.js if you want to get it yourself.)
  • Fixed! (And thanks for the recommendation, I'll look into that). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Other than that, nothing. The sources are all appropriately scholarly. If I'm being too picky...

• Your Gallagher and van Luijk sources lacks publication locations.
  • Ah, this has arisen as another editor added these citations to the article after I had originally nominated it at GAN. I'll sort this out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• ABC-Clio or ABC-CLIO?
  • I've standardised this to ABC-CLIO, which I believe is the correct form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Petersen 2015 lacks a location and a publisher.
  • I've added location, publisher, and the names of the editors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at images... No concerns. I'll just want a last look at the prose before I promote. I'll try to get to that tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Some small bits from a second look-through (also note my replies above):

• ancient Egypt or Ancient Egypt
  • I've standardised appearances of this to the lower-case "ancient" throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Is The Magicians: A Study of the Use of Power in a Black Magic Group worth sticking in the further reading? What about Painted Black and The New Satanists? Presumably they're all somewhat out-of-date.
  • I think that The Magicians could definitely go into "Further Reading" (and will do so), although I do not think that the same could be said for the other two tomes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• "In that year, Schreck led a schism within the organisation" As above, I'd like more on this, but even if that's not possible, you should specify which Schreck.
  • Good idea. I've made it clear that this is Zeena Schreck who is being described. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• "through adherence to the left hand path" left-hand?
  • Good point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Your dash formatting is inconsistent. Sometimes you space them (as in "Set") sometimes not (as in "Later development")
  • As I understand it, our policy is to avoid such spaces, so I shall remove them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

In case you're interested, I suspect Aquino is notable; Fontaine definitely is, and we already have an article about one of her books. The article's looking great, and I'm sure I'll be promoting soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that both Aquino and La Fontaine probably warrant their own Wikipedia articles; perhaps that's a task for me to get on with in future. Once again, thanks for taking the time to produce a review, Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and promote at this time. I still think the history section needs a bit more about post-2000 happenings, but I'll leave that hanging. This is a great article, and might, in the future, have a good chance at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)