Talk:Thelema/GA1

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

This article was awarded GA status in 2008, back when Wikipedia's general standards were far beneath what they have since become. (The article was nominated by a German IP while the editor who then gave it GA status, User:Jackturner3, has not edited since 2014.) Even at the time, its listing was controversial; User:Redblossom challenged the awarding of GA status at the Talk Page shortly after (archived here). Certainly, the article in its current form is nowhere close to GA quality. Large sections of it are completely unreferenced, and of the sources that are used, most appear to be primary, constituting either the writings of Crowley himself or of subsequent Thelemites. Virtually no academic publications are cited, despite the growing scholarly literature on this topic. All in all, this seems like a clear-cut case for de-listing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The article in question contains long passages devoid of citations, some of which make claims that really need to be cited. One example is, "The Book of the Law can be taken to imply a kind of pantheism or panentheism" from the "God, deity, and the divine" section. This needs a scholarly source, or to be removed. Other passages like, "Thelemites differ widely in their views of the divine, and these views are often tied to their personal paradigms, including their conceptions of what demarcates objective and subjective reality, as well as falsehood and truth: some hold unique, or otherwise very specific or complex views of the nature of divinity, that are not easily explained; many are supernaturalists, claiming that the supernatural or paranormal in some way exist, and incorporate these assumptions into their spiritual practices in some way; others are religious or spiritual naturalists, viewing the spiritual or sacred—or whatever they feel is, or may be, in reality, analogous to them, or their equivalents—as identical to the material, natural, or physical." are possibly anecdotal and need scholarly citations, and also need a great deal of formatting help. This selection is possibly the worst run-on sentence I've ever seen. Because of citation and formatting issues, the article ought to be stripped of its GA status until it meets the new standards. XenuTheSpacelord (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been over a week and no improvements, or prospect of improvement, has been forthcoming. Time to delist. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if anyone is still paying attention to this (so pinging), but I've removed the uncited section and upgraded all the refs to be much more complete. Don't really suggest the article be relisted, as it still has some issues, especially the last section about organizations. It may be that all that info can be verified to the source at the very end of multiple paragraphs, but I'm dubious. I'll probably remove the section in a month or so if no improvement. Skyerise (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)