Wikipedia:Peer review/Jehovah's Witnesses/archive2

Jehovah's Witnesses

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has been nearly three years since it was last reviewed. I think the article has improved tremendously and is balanced and informative.

Thanks, Sungmanitu (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This article comes off more objective than subjective. The beliefs of the witnesses are followed by a counterpoint and the beliefs do not display thorough research into the "Why they believe such" or the "where they get their beliefs". It seems the thorough research went into looking at the criticism and that shows in the most commonly cited books. When you present their core beliefs it should be followed by an explanation of where they get such belief with cited reference preferably to their own publications instead of publications made to bring controversy but instead we get the presentation of beliefs as backed by a reference to a book not published by the Jehovah's Witnesses.


 * The history, explanation of the organization, and beliefs are mostly backed and cited by books printed by critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Those books should be cited and used in the controversy section.


 * The description of the faith starts out with controversies presented. Too objective. Controversies and counter points should remain in the controversy section. Brocknroll81 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so changeas one example religion's stance against military service has brought it into conflict with governments that conscript citizens for military service[13][14], and activities ...
 * Article needs more references, for example Russell died in 1916 and was succeeded by Joseph Franklin Rutherford (also known as "Judge" Rutherford). has no ref. Most of the Publications section needs refs too. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful, see refs 14, 25, 152, 153, etc. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that break up the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
 * The section on 1879-1916 seems very short