Wikipedia:Peer review/The Doors of Perception/archive1

The Doors of Perception
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think this page meets all the Featured article criteria, but it probably needs a bit more work before reaching the lofty regions of the featured article. I'm not sure if it is a 'Language and literature' or 'Philosophy and religion', as Huxley is generally thought of as a novelist and essayist, although the book/essay deals with religion and philosophy. Thanks, Evenmadderjon (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

P. S. Burton's comments: Is the cover in the infobox the the first edition? If not, I suggest using the first edition cover. P. S. Burton (talk)  21:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks P. S. Burton. I can see a couple of small images of the first edition cover after a Google images search (there are both US and UK editions and the UK one looks slightly more interesting), but would I be allowed to take one of those images? Even the largest one is only 149 × 220 in size, is that too small? --Evenmadderjon (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on wikipedias fair use policy, but if think something like 300 x 400 (like this ) would be the ideal size. I think one of those you found will work tough. Its always better to show a first edition. (I will try to do a more extensive review of the article later, I don't have the time right know.) It sure is a fascinating book. P. S. Burton  (talk)  19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think it needs some more work before it would be ready for FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement with that goal in mind. 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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, I agree that the cover of the first edition (and presumably the first British edition) would be better to use in the Infobox. It would need a fair use rationale, as the current cover image already has (so there is a model to follow)
 * I think that a mdoel article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 37 FAs on books at Category:FA-Class Book articles and it seems to me that perhaps something like History of a Six Weeks' Tour or Rambles in Germany and Italy, which are books by a British author on their experiences, might be useful as models. I also think that Getting It: The Psychology of est, which is on a somewhat controversial topic, might be a useful model too. No model is perfect, but hopefully there are some helpful ones in the category.
 * The disambig links in the toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page finds two dab links that need to be fixed.
 * Now on to specific points. The lead of this article does not follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the Native American use of peyote and the quote which is the source of the name seem to only be in the lead.
 * The current lead does not adequtely summarize the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the criticisms are not mentioned in the lead at all.
 * One big potential problem with the article, especially at FAC, is a lack of references. Direct quotations all need refs, so the Blake quote needs one, as do texts taken from the book itself.
 * There are also several places that need refs. For example in the "Huxley and Huston Smith's response" section, the last two paragraphs have no refs, but need them. Anything that is attributed to someone, like Smith claims that consciousness-changing substances have been linked with religion both throughout history and across the world, and further it is possible that many religious perspectives had their origins in them, which were later forgotten. also needs a ref.
 * My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * There are also some Manual of Style issues here - for example the use of quotation marks does not follow WP:MOSQUOTE - many places use 'single quotes' (which should only be used for a quote within a quote, per the MOS) and should instead use "double quotes"
 * Per WP:See also, the see also section is generally reserved for links to articles which are not already linked in this one. At least Peyote and Humphry Osmond are already linked and so almost certainly do not need to be in the see also section
 * I would spell out the names of people mentioned, at least on first use - so Robert Charles Zaehner, not "RC Zaehner" - if there is a strong reason to just initials, the MOS says to use periods after them (so I think it would be R.C. Zaehner, can't recall if there should be a space between the initials or not)
 * Another major issue is that the article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which interrupt the flow. I would combine these with others wherever possible, or perhaps expand them.
 * The one sentence section on Cultural references is problematic too - it is very short, needs a ref, and should not be a bullet point.
 * There is a free image of Huxley in his article, and there are free images of some of the art works (Vermeer for example) mentioned that could be used to illustrate this
 * The other major concern I have here is comprehensiveness, which is a FA criterion. I think that the article needs some background to let the reader know more about Huxley and peyote and why he decided to take mescaline when he did.
 * If anything about the writing of the book is known, that should also be included. Similarly if there is any sort of publishing history (did he have trouble finding a publisher, was the book banned anywhere, etc?)
 * I have no idea of the critical history of this book, but the article seems to point to multiple critical responses to it - One of the earliest criticisms of The Doors of Perception was by RC Zaehner... As it is though, the article focuses only on Zaehner's critique and the responses to it. I think other cirtics need to be included.
 * What was the general effect of the book on society of the time and after? Did it encourage others to try mescaline / peyote? I think the Cultural references sentence could be included in this section, when expanded / written
 * My other concern is that the Synopsis section seems very long and quite detailed, especially compared to the rest of the article. On a quick count, there are 10 paragraphs in Synopsis and only 11 in the rest of the article outside of the lead and Publication date

Thank you for your comments Ruhrfisch, very helpful indeed. A trip to the library is in order I think.--92.7.96.234 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)