Talk:Celtic reconstructionism/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

To uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of September 18, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


 * I have two major concerns with this article. The first is in the quality of some of the sourcing. Bonewitz, for instance is relied on pretty heavily, yet he can hardly be considered a reliable scholarly source. I note that similar concerns have been raised on the article talk page, but have not been addressed. What makes the Witches Voice (ref #4) a reliable source?


 * My second major concern is the uncritical essay-like tone employed throughout. Are there no scholarly analyses critical of the movement? Does everyone think it's a great idea?


 * It's not even clear to me from a reading of this article that CR is a recognisably distinct branch of neo-paganism. How is it organised? How members does it have? Does anyone know?


 * The article makes some pretty bold claims, such as "It is clear that some of those early Celtic societies practiced human sacrifice", which are unsupported by the facts. The only thing that's clear is that some Roman writers claimed that they did.


 * "The founders and elders of CR believe that ...". Who are these "founders and elders?


 * There are at least two dead links.

--Malleus Fatuorum 12:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)