User talk:LukeCBoyd/draft

Peer Review (Isaac Shih): First off, I really like the topic and think that Inuit religion page was missing info regarding shamanism as it is only mentioned briefly earlier at the top of the existing page. I do have some suggestions regarding formatting and citations. In regards to the citations, the three citations at the bottom of your page don't match up perfectly to the citations you list in the middle of the page (the Howard Norman one is repeated twice and the Metayer one is absent). Additionally, I think the one line paragraph mentioning the the Biblical judges could use a citation? If you came up with that comparison on your own then obviously is does not but even if that is the case I do not really know what Biblical Judges even refers to so I could imagine others wanting a source to come to that comparison themselves. In regards to the formatting, in your last paragraph I would consider using slightly different language. I think using a phrase such as "this could be shown as" could potentially come off as an argument/illustrating your own view on what that source says about the topic in question. Instead, since I assume that stance might have been taken by the author of the source, you could say something like: "some scholars have interpreted these stories as evidence that..." Another little note, if it is not too much work I might consider also adding more info to another section on the page or add another section similar in length to this one that you just wrote as I feel like there are a lot of places the current wikipedia page could use more content. Last two things, there is already a sub-section in the current wikipedia page talking about Angakkuq which seem to be similar to shaman (I am a little confused by the Inuit language/very short description of this little sub-section so I do not know if these are the same or something similar). If they are similar or the same you might consider combining the two sub-sections instead of creating an entirely new sub-section. Finally, if there are new terms that you are adding to the page that have not yet been discussed/hyperlinked, I would consider hyperlinking them (Bilbical Judges being an example of this). Overall, nice work! Looks like a good addition to the page! Haern23 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Haern23 thank you for your helpful feedback and suggestions for improvement. LukeCBoyd there are some very good suggestions here that I agree with, especially regarding the language and the citations. The issue raised about the similarity between Angakkuq and shamans is a good point, so you should do some research on Angakkuq as well to make sure you understand the difference between the two (and you can improve that section in the process)! This is a really great contribution to the page and I'm looking forward to seeing how it develops over the next couple of weeks. Continue researching, writing, and improving this article with additional sources (try to find some more recent publications too). Keep up the good work! Gardneca (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)