Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LaVeyan Satanism/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:26, 7 May 2007.

LaVeyan Satanism
I propose this article towards featured article status because I feel that it meets all the criteria for featured article status. If you have any comments please feel free to leave me some on my talk page. Thanks. P.S. I'm not an "official" member of the Church of Satan; so don't go there. LOL. Lighthead 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're going to need to format the references more carefully and sprinkle in more footnotes. Check some other featured articles you like to see how this is usually done. Haukur 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the nine this, the eleven that because I checked the official website and those are the main tenets of the Church; to not include them would make the article less informative. Lighthead 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose&mdash;1a and 1c. The references need formatting and used more precicely throughout the article (in other words, more inline citations to these references are needed). The prose needs tweaking to conform to the "engaging, professional standard". Here are examples:
 * There are numerous stubby, 1 or 2 sentence paras throughout. Please consolidate these into larger paras.
 * The article includes several lists. I'm not a list hater, but you might meet some flak for that.
 * "The Church of Satan claims that there are members all over the world, including countries where it is dangerous to be a Satanist." Sentence needs rewording. "Claims" is usually a disliked word, and "all over the world" should be "worldwide". The second part of the sentence might be unnecessary, especially with "worldwide" encompassing that idea.
 * "Though exact numbers are never released, it has been estimated that the number of adherents is in the tens of thousands." This may be more of a personal preference, but "Though" should be "Although".
 * Glancing throughout the rest of the article, I see other (generally subjective) issues.
 * Please contact the League of Copyeditors so that two or three people unfamiliar with the text can proofread and strengthen the prose. I also recommend User:Silence; this area of Wikipedia is his strongsuit. &mdash; Deckiller 02:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is still a good amount of content that needs to be considered, even if the language is strengthened. The "history" section may or may not be of value due to the fact that there is now an article to cover Satanism as a whole, including historical ideas. Perhaps the article fits in for "Good Article" status, but not Featured. As for the lists, they are actual quotes from the Church of Satan and not the conventional list. 64.5.145.74 14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense since I know enough to know that each branch of Satanism is different from any other! Lighthead 21:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Statements, Sins, and Rules of the Earth should stay as is. But something that bothers me (that I know that I did, but I didn't see how to do), is referencing the same thing multiple times. The Satanic Bible, being a main source of "LaVeyan Satanism" iought to be referenced more than once. Though perhaps there can be a distinction between individual chapters? I'm not sure what to do here!WerewolfSatanist 22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We have someone proofreading it. So. Lighthead 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As concerns book citations, if the nominator wishes for certain statements to be cited from "The Satanic Bible" then he can message me at my talk page. I happen to have a copy of this. LuciferMorgan 09:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment "Criticisms" section is weasly and too generalised. You cannot say "some say this" or "some say that". What you can say is "Mr. X. of this newspaper / organisation etc. (insert notability here) said..". LuciferMorgan 09:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try adding cites this weekend to the article. One issue I have though is this; is this article just a paraphrasal of what's said in LaVey's book? Would this be copyvio if so? LuciferMorgan 09:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead looks somewhat improved; the rest of the article still needs attention. &mdash; Deckiller 17:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its a copyright violation. Most of the concepts are on various sites throughought the internet. Perhaps the article could quote more of LaVey's various works. As well as Michael Aquino's alleged history of the Church, and the various studies done on the subject. WerewolfSatanist 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Only 4 references that aren't official Church of Satan sources--none of which appear to be particularly notable. No scholarly sources.  Just do a quick google scholar search for LaVey and you will see there are sources dedicated to him.  I am sure more digging and some expert knowledge would uncover more.  The article is almost half lists.  Half of the references are not in a proper bibliographic format.  Multiple sections have no references.  Some of these issues can be fixed rather quickly.  The more substantive ones like good scholarly sources cannot.  I recommend bringing this to peer review first--but even before that you will need dedicated editors willing to do the research beyond just the internet (or, at least with access to academic journals--if you need a specific article I may be able to help if I have access, so contact me). gren グレン 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article needs a "history" section, and it needs a lot more references (especially for "beliefs" and the like). I've done some copyediting to the article, but it still needs more work. -Silence 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.