Wikipedia:Peer review/Wicca/archive1

Wicca
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed a Featured Article nomination in the past, but has been greatly altered since then. Several daughter articles have been forked from it, leaving the mother article shorter and in better shape. Many references have been added and a period of semi-protection has reduced vandalism and led to a good period of stability.

I would like to move towards Good Article nomination and ultimately Featured Article, and see this peer review as a helpful step to get some feedback. Thanks, Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the semi-automated review: have taken its comments on board. Would appreciate some human reviews too if anyone is out there! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please fix up the automated suggestions - I've had an article put on GA hold because of the automated suggestions. It's a bit unclear as to whether you've used the "Academic studies" section as a reference in the article at all. Is it just a case of further reading? Such a section is not compliant with the WP:MOS, and as such would give GA reviewers pause. Why is magick (which, somehow, is a separate article from magic (paranormal) ) unmentioned? Why is Craft name capitalised as it is? The "Discrimination against and persecution of Wiccans" link does not work - and in any case screams out POV. I thought "malevent" was spelled "malevolent"... you may need to run the article through a spell-checker. Also, you may wish to consider looking at GA or FA religion articles (not sure if there are any FA religion articles...) to see how they are structured and what information they cover. Towards the middle-end of the article, there are few citations - take a look at When to cite for opinions about when you should be citing stuff. -Malkinann (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great, many thanks. I have fixed up most of the automated suggestions and will work through your helpful additions above. Is it OK if I copy your paragraph above onto the article's talk page? Not every editor on the article will be looking at this peer review, I fear, and may miss the feedback. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, go for it. Looking at Bahai, one thing this article is missing is a "demographics" section - who practices Wicca?  Is it recognised in any country's censuses?  Is there any difference between the demographics of Wicca-in-a-tradition and eclectic Wicca?  How impossible is it to find out the demographics of Wicca?  Also, the holidays section and the section on the Book of Shadows are unreferenced - could you pull a reference or two out of the daughter articles for these sections?  -Malkinann (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)