Wikipedia:Peer review/A Community of Witches/archive1

A Community of Witches
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is an important sociological study of the Wiccan community in the U.S. and believe that it has reached a sufficient standard that it deserves a peer review.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll do this review. I'm busy in Real Life for the next few days, but should be able to get to it soon. --Noleander (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * The InfoBox title is missing " ... and Witchcraft ... " from the book title at top. --Noleander (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers for pointing that one out! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Section 'Academic books and papers" in the Bibl seems to have a lot of works.  They should be limited to (1) works used as cited sources; (2)  works about the book that is the topic of the article; or (3) other books by Berger.  General works on paganism belong in the paganism article, not here. --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has a few ambiguous links. Use tool  http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=A_Community_of_Witches   to find and fix them. --Noleander (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sentence: "In Denny's preface to the book, he argued that it ..." ... I dont think Denny is arguing there.  Maybe "states" or "describes the book ..." or something like that. --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider adding a "See Also" section ... perhaps containing links to other books on similar topics. --Noleander (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The two sections "Influence and recognition" and "Berger's later work" are laid-out oddly. Maybe do this:  (1) rename "Reviews" to "Reception & recognition";  (2) move the 1 sentence on the award up into the Reception section; (2) make "Berger's later work" a top-level section.  --Noleander (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking pretty good ... I'm having a hard time finding issues.  --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this Noleader! It was certainly a help! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Small suggestion: try to expand that "awards" section. Like who gives out that award, and what is it recognizing, etc. If this is the only award it was nominated for, then consider re-naming the section to the singular "Award" maclean (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Plural Awards vs Award: That is a good question.  WP:LAYOUT says that section names for references ("References", 'Footnotes", etc) should always be plural, even if there is only one.  Not sure if that applies to other sections like Award(s). --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Abbreviation "Cambridge, Mas." - I think that should be MA or Mass. --Noleander (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)