Talk:Handbook of Religion and Health

B class check list
I assessed this article as C-class. As I assess many articles quickly, I am generally conservative because I realise how much more difficult it is to lower an assessment than it is to raise it. I was asked what it would take to make this a B-class article. There are 6 general B-Class criteria. The gap that I see in this article is the lack of a "Background" section to say where the book came from (eg. who the authors are, what makes the authors qualified to write about this topic, etc.).

Personally, I suggest splitting up the "Topics covered" and the "Reviews and response" sections to create a "Contents (or Synopsis)" section, a "Style" section, and "Reception" section. Place the structural elements in the "Style" section, like "2-page conclusion, 95 pages of references, and a 24-page index" as well as any comments regarding the author's approach (tone, targeted audience, presentation, etc). In "Reception" section should be more about opinions on what was good, and as such the use of quotes like in "Reviews and response" is appropriate. If I was writing this article I'd likely make the "Contents (or Synopsis)" a ~7 paragraph section to communicate what the book says (matching the 7 'parts' of the book).

Regardless of my opinion, to get GA-class, all that is really needed is a Background, Contents, and Reception section. Add a "Background" section and I'll upgrade it to B-class. --maclean (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to focus too much on minutiae and incidentals. It pains me to say this because it appears that much effort has been invested in this article (particularly by User:Presearch), but I recommend that the minutiae and incidentals be stripped out. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think that for people with any knowledge of the area, the overview gives most of its attention to conveying overall proportions of what is in the book, and conveying how the book handles key issues, such as what is claimed about cuasality. This is not at all a minor issue. Better than could be done in any abstract statement that might be vacuous, presenting key elements of the TOC is also helpful and efficient for conveying the flavour of what is in the book. -Presearch (talk)  16:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Handbook of Religion and Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609185745/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/handbook-of-religion-and-health-11 to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/handbook-of-religion-and-health-11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Handbook of Religion and Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629163435/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/?view=usa&view=usa&ci=9780195118667&cp=24297 to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/?view=usa&view=usa&ci=9780195118667&cp=24297

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)