Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Community of Witches/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 article was not promoted by Ucucha 00:37, 23 February 2012 [1].

---

A Community of Witches

A Community of Witches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/A Community of Witches/archive1

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Having been surprised at the lack of good quality articles discussing academic texts on Wikipedia, I set about working on this one back on 28 November 2011, and now I think it's about ready for FA review. The article successfully obtained B-class status on 5 December 2011, and then it went on to attain GA-status too on 27 December 2011 after a bit more work. Following a few weeks’ worth of additions and improvements, I believe that it meets all of the FA and would be honoured if someone would like to review it. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

• Comments from Mark Arsten.
• Looks interesting, just the kind of article to read during a bout with insomnia :) I'll try to give the prose/presentation aspects a review over the weekend. I'll suggest changes as I come to them, feel free to reject them if you think I'm incorrect.
• Lead
• You have "north-eastern United States" in the lead, our article has it Northeastern United States. Also, might want to link that.
• "Berger interprets Wicca as a religion of late modernity as opposed to postmodernity," Maybe a comma after "modernity"?

Right, I've made both of these changes. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

• Paganism and Wicca in the United States
• "Contemporary Paganism, which is also referred to as Neo-Paganism," Do we need the "which is" there?
• "second wave feminism" Hyphen?
• "One initiate of both the Dianic and Gardnerian traditions was a woman known as Starhawk (1951–) who went on to found her own tradition, Reclaiming Wicca, as well as publishing The Spiral Dance: a Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess (1979), a book which helped spread Wicca throughout the U.S." This is kind of along sentence, maybe break it up?
• I'm not sure about the Manual of Style rules here, but I wonder if it's right to put DOBs in text like this "Raymond Buckland (1934–)"?
• Just an opinion here, but this feels like kinda a heavy amount of background to be starting with. Might want to get another opinion though, since reviewers are always getting on my case about not having enough background in articles.

Right, I've made these changes too, but left the birth and death dates of the significant figures mentioned in the text. Personally I feel like this is an acceptable level of baclground detail; I for one might even suggest expanding it, but then I fear it really would be too lengthy for the average reader. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

• Academic fieldwork into Wicca
• You use "both" a couple times in the first paragraph, I think you could probably remove both.
• "The first of these had been the practicing Wiccan, journalist and political activist Margot Adler" I would suggest "was" instead of "had been".
• "the East Coast and Midwest of the United States" Maybe link these.
• "Orion's work would come to be published as" Maybe just "was" instead of "would come to be"
• "although would be heavily criticized in reviews" Missing a word? Mark Arsten (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, I've gone through and made all of these corrections too. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

• Berger and her research
• "who were then living in the area." Maybe see if you can remove a few words there.
• "and she would go on to attend their weekly meetings" Maybe just "attended" instead of "would go on to attend"?
• "on the internet and at festivals, with the duo receiving over 2000 responses, providing Berger with one of her main sources of information." This is kind of a long sentence and includes the WP:PLUSING construction. I suggest ending sentence after festivals and then starting the next sentence with "The duo received...".
• "She conducted formal interviews with over forty practicing Pagans, with over sixty others" I think "40" and "60" would be better here.
• "north-eastern United States" again.
• "Unlike the sociologists Margot Adler and Loretta Orion," You've already mentioned their qualifications, so I don't think you need to do it here.
• "a series of books entitled 'Studies in Comparative Religion'" Are the single quotes correct? I'm not sure how the MOS handles series of books.
• I made some light copyedits to this section, hope you approve. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, I've made most of the suggested changes here too. However I did keep "the sociologists" because readers may have skipped the previous section, thereby not being aware of the profession of these individuals. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

• Synopsis
• In one sentence you have "both... as well". Maybe just include one of them.
• "In the second chapter, entitled "The Magical Self"" and then "Chapter four, "A Circle within a Circle: The Neo-Pagan Community"," Maybe remove the "entitled" from the earlier one.
• "She then moves on to look at concepts of gender in the Wiccan community, both for men and women and also for homosexuals." Could probably remove "then". Also, I'm not sure about the last part: men, women, and homosexuals? Maybe there's a better way to put that.
• I might be a bit dense here, but I'm not sure what "emancipatory politics and life politics" are.
• "relationship between Wicca and routinization" What is routinization?

Right, I've made most of these suggested changes here. I've not gone on to explain the concepts of "emancipatory politics" and "life politics"; being sociological concepts, they probably warrant their own Wikipedia pages anyway. Similarly, I am unsure if a discussion of what routinization is warranted here; maybe it could be linked to routine ?(Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

• Wicca as a religion of late modernity
• "that elements of postmodernism can certainly be found within Wicca" Maybe remove "certainly"

Done. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

• Wicca as a result of globalism
• "modern westerners picking and choosing elements" I suggest you rephrase to avoid the participle here.

Done. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

• The future of Wicca
• "Berger disagreed, arguing that it was" Maybe remove "it was" here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

• Academic reviews
• "Praising Berger for "maintaining a high degree of theoretical sophistication while remaining accessible for the average reader", he did however have some criticisms, for instance noting that Berger had used the terms "Wiccan" and "Neo-Pagan" interchangeably, even though they have different meanings and he felt that this might confuse some of the book's readers." This is kind of a long sentence, maybe see if you can break it up a bit.
• "Foltz did however highlight some problems" Maybe think about removing "however" here.
• As SandyGeorgia pointed out, this section is a bit quote heavy.

I've responded to these criticisms, editing the aforementioned sentence down. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

• Awards
• Not sure that I like the idea of a one sentence subsection like this. Also, who gave the award?

I can certainly appreciate your concern here, it's something that has bothered me too. However, I really cannot find any other information other than what I have included here. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

• Berger's later work
• I think the first sentence here could probably be tightened up a bit.
• "both with Leigh S. Shaffer, a fellow professor of sociology at West Chester University, and also" Maybe just use "both" or "also" here.

Done. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

• Alright, that's all for now, this was a fun article to read. I think the prose problems are fixable, but will need a bit more work. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I don't return for a while. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You've certainly given me a lot to work on Mark, but thanks a bundle for reviewing this for me! I'll try and make my way through the corrections this evening, crossing them each out as I go along, if that's okay? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Sure, that's probably the best way to do it. Maybe we can collapse them when we're finished with them all? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, changes look good to me. I'll try to go through the rest by the end of the weekend. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Templates are discouraged at FAC because they cause the archives to exceed Wikipedia:Template limits (see FAC instructions.) For a sample of how to move lengthy dicussions to article talk, and avoid clogging the main FAC page, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Wong Kim Ark/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, Ok. Is there a rule of thumb about how much space a review can take up before moving it to the talk page? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really, but the longer a review, the less likely other reviewers are to engage, since a very long review suggests that the article wasn't FAC ready, and should have been at peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a prose, copyedit needed (see list above): I suggest finding an independent copyeditor to comb through the prose. The list above is lengthy enough that it approaches Peer review territory, where issues might be better worked off-FAC. In my first glance down the article, I found these prose issues (samples only):
• Throughout her 11 year period of fieldwork, Berger had to use snowball sampling to retrieve her data on the Pagan community, something that she attributed to the "secrecy of groups and practitioners".

• Missing hyphen, "retrieve" data?.

• She conducted formal interviews with over forty practicing Pagans, and over sixty others instead were informally interviewed during conversations at Pagan events, following which Berger recorded their responses in her fieldnotes.

• Why the "instead"? "Interviewed during conversations"? Following which ... in her notes ... tangled.

• Starting with a preface in which Berger explains how she first began studying the Wiccan and Pagan community of New England, Berger opens the main part of her book with a description of a Wiccaning which she attended

• Tortured: Berger ... Berger; Starting with a preface (doesn't the preface always "start" a book?).

The article also seems to overrely on quotes: I suggest that either Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) or Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs) might be able to help out here. With their intervention, the prose can likely be polished to FA standards, and the nomination will have a better chance at success. I haven't looked beyond 1a, prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've asked Malleus Fatuorum to have a glance over this if they have the time. Hopefully they can point out any further problems with the prose. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC))

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Adler 1979, Luhrmann 1996
• Foltz 1999 or 2000?
• Mary-Jo or Mary Jo Neitz?
• Check alphabetization of bibliography
• No citations to Greenwood 2000, Magliocco 2004, Salomonsen 2002
• Ranges should use endashes
• Where was Greenwood published?
• Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated or not
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this Nikkimaria, I've removed the superfluous Greenwood entry in the bibliography, and ensured that all the ranges used endashes. I've corrected "Mary-Jo" to "Mary Jo", and added the bibliographic information for Adler 1979 and Luhrmann 1996. I have ensured consistency in the use of state names and removed both the location of journals and the bibliographic entries for Magliocco 2004 and Salomonsen 2002. I can also confirm that Foltz is 2000, not 1999. Oh, and I put N before V in the bibliography, as it should be. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.