Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wicca (etymology)/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 list was not promoted by 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC).

Wicca (etymology)

 * Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article status because I have recently undertaken a lot of work to improve it and pull it up to what I hope is FA quality; but I leave others to be the judge of that. Because it deals with a relatively minor, obscure subject, I have been able to use all of the academic, peer-reviewed publications that have ever been published on this issue in order to put together this article. I therefore consider it to be as comprehensive as possible, and can see little space for improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Page(s) for Field? Wilson? FN33?
 * Further reading should not contain cited sources
 * Heselton 2003 or 2004? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, an editor had moved the cited sources into the Further Reading after I had initiated this FA nomination; I have corrected this. I have also corrected Heselton to 2004. Field is a newspaper article, long out of print, so I am unsure that we would be able to obtain the page number in this instance, although I shall look into it. Similar problem with Wilson, in that the article is in an obscure and long out of print magazine, but I shall look into it Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I have discovered and added the page numbers of Wilson's article to the references. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A scan of the Field article can be found online here. Unfortunately, the page numbers are not visible. Considering that the Doyle White paper doesn't carry them either, I suspect that it will be beyond possibility for us to obtain them, and therefore this particular criteria should be waived in this particular instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive my ignorance, but I do not know what you mean by "FN33?". Could you please explain this for me ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I believe Nikki is referring to Footnote 33 (Janus-Mithras, Nuit-Hilaria and Mer-Amun 1981).  Ruby  2010/  2013  17:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated Ruby! Footnote 33 refers to the entire book, and not any particular page within it, so naturally there is no need for page numbers there! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The article should be titled Etymology of Wicca. The current name implies that there is a type of etymology known as Wicca. This is a subarticle of Wicca, and you do not also have 'Wicca (history)', but rather 'History of Wicca', and the sames goes for this one. Reywas92 Talk 16:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point that you have made Reywas92. When I founded this article, I followed the example set by Witch (etymology) when naming it, although am not averse to making a change if others agree that it is the correct course of action. However, would a better title be Etymology of "Wicca", reflecting that the article deals with the word itself, not the religious movement that it refers to ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, that article probably ought to be moved too. Quotation marks are generally discouraged in article names, and etymology implies the word itself; here are other etymology articles on WP. Reywas92 Talk 00:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well, your reasoning and argument seems sound; I have moved "Wicca (etymology)" to "Etymology of Wicca". Thanks for the advice! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Open almost six weeks without any consensus to promote, and no comments for almost a month, this nom has clearly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. I'd suggest that putting it through GAN and Peer Review may be beneficial in generating more interest before another renomination at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.