Talk:A Community of Witches/GA1

GA Review
{[archive top}}

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"? ✅ 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good coverage of the subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Appears to be stable
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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)