Talk:Wicca/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Unfortunately, this article no longer lives up the GA status that it was awarded back in 2008. Since then, Wikipedia standards have become far more stringent, while the actual quality and coherance of this page has been eroded. For these reasons, this status must be revoked.

Well written

This article does not fit Wikipedia's manual of style; the introduction in no way summarises the page's contents, for instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of quality, I can't disagree. I hoped my earlier comments would have spurred more cleaning, but little has changed.

As for the lead, if that was the only problem, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also, I've expand the lead. I loosely based it on its state around 2010, its stable most stable time before it started growing.

—Sowlos 18:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

There are large sections here that are completely unreferenced, or poorly referenced. On this criteria, it is a clear fail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree the article needs better referencing. It is not just a matter of quantity, it is also of quality. However, I wouldn't say "large sections" of "completely unreferenced" content is a persistent issue. Only a handful of paragraphs lack any citations.

—Sowlos 18:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community input

Looks like some valid points raised above. I just wanted to check that the major contributors and Wikiprojects have been notified of the reassessment to see if anyone is willing to address the issues. AIRcorn (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a {{Please see}} at WT:PAGAN#Discussion at Talk:Wicca#GA Reassessment and just now at WT:RELIGION#Discussion at Talk:Wicca#GA Reassessment. As for individual contributors: I haven't personally informed informed anyone and as far as I can see, Midnightblueowl only informed Kim Dent-Brown. However, I have been under the assumption interested editors follow the relevant WikiProjects and this talk page.
—Sowlos 06:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all do and I have on a few occasions met disgruntled editors that I have forgotten to inform so it is usually best to be over frivolous when it comes to notifications. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I've got access to a few reference works with substantial articles on Wicca, and, if nothing else, I figure I can in the next few days (I hope it's the next few days, anyway) go through some of them and try to add some material and/or references. I tend to get sidetracked fairly easily, though, so we may not see any real factual results for at least a few days, maybe longer. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figure I can in the next few days (I hope it's the next few days, anyway) go through some of them and try to add some material and/or references. I tend to get sidetracked fairly easily, though ...story of my life.
I'll try to do the same. If the article doesn't see much improvement over the next (say) two weeks, it may require down-listing.
—Sowlos 09:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from my recent edit history, my activity here has been very intermittent recently, due to, among other things, modem problems. That has made any attempts to do anything about this article problematic. Request maybe an extension of a week to give me time to try to do something with a computer that can actually edit here. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am usually for extensions as long as people begin the needed work immediately, but this reassessment is Midnightblueowl's show. That said, I am becoming sceptical that quick emergency cleaning can bring Wicca (back?) to GA status. I have started refactoring the article's citations and I am noticing several un-GA-like problems. Mislabelling of citations, citations that conflict with themselves, erratic citation style and coverage, problematic content structure, and academic deficit top the list. These kinds of systemic issues call for a complete line-by-line review and potential overhaul, not just the addition of a few extra citations. I will do what I can, but without extensive help from others, this article will most definitely require downlisting.
—Sowlos 13:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've kind of noticed a few problematic areas myself, based on some of the material I've looked at. Of the points you've rasied above, conflicting citations seems to me to be the most serious, and, honestly, I think is probably grounds for delisting in and of itself. I do know that in general we accept entries in other encyclopedic works as being RS, generally among the most reliable of sources, and I wonder whether, for an article of this type, which is both widely discussed in such sources and also, in a sense, maybe a bit more controversial than some others, if maybe one of the best things we could do would be to at least initially base the content of our article on the content of those other articles, adding citations to the relevant encyclopedias as appropriate, and then maybe going through some more "secondary" sources to change to them as required and maybe bring the article up to GA/FA level. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

conflicting citations seems to me to be the most serious
True. I don't know how common related problems are, though; it wasn't something I was looking for. The most common issue (thankfully) was copying details from one edition of a book for another of the same title.
we accept entries in other encyclopedic works as being RS...maybe one of the best things we could do would be to at least initially base the content of our article on the content of those other articles
While I'm open to the possibility, I'm hesitant. Historically misunderstood, non-mainstream topics don't always receive accurate coverage (even if well meaning). However, given the fact that most encyclopaedic coverage of Wicca would be within the last decade or so, that may not be a serious issue. I guess lets see what we can find. At the very least, loosely basing/reworking its structure and coverage on that of a few other encyclopaedic articls wont hurt if we find ours to be significantly deficient. Either way, lets make sure that we try to increase the percentage of citations for peer reviewed articles and academic books.
...FA is the goal. ;) —Sowlos 18:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Without claiming ownership here, I do feel a certain level of moral responsibility as I reworked this article several years ago and submitted it for GA at that time. I'll have a look and see what I can do, but I think we also need a good specific list of precise criticisms and changes needed. If anyone (perhaps ideally someone relatively unfamiliar with the topic?) felt able to produce that list it would be great. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that I haven't been a part of much of the discussions here, but seeing as how little has been done on the issues in question, I feel it is necessary that we go ahead and demote it. I very much hope however that such an action will spur editors to go on and improve the quality of the article so that it can then earn its GA status again, and be much better for it. I'm more than happy to help out with this task. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]