Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches
Self-nom. I'm a little embarassed about how long it has been since I've been on this end of WP:FAC. In any case, please take a look at this article about Charles Godfrey Leland's 1899 book, which claims to reveal the "Gospel" of a Pagan witch-cult surviving in nineteenth-century Tuscany. The article has been through peer review. It is a little shorter than some, at about 25k, but I think that it is an exhaustive treatment. Thanks for your consideration. Jkelly 19:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Though I think the lead can use a little trimming per WP:LEAD. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Did a few minor tweaks onawkward prose. Normally would agree w. Stax on lead, but in this case it's complex & not sure how it could be shortened ans still retain flavour & significant points. Very well done balanced piece IMHO.Bridesmill 21:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Strong work. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support An interesting subject of the kind Wikipedia is a good resource for. I attempted a copyedit and apologize if I've made any errors. That said I have a few minor suggestions- Under "Contents" it lists "Diana, Lucifer, Cain" and I was wondering if a brief description of who these characters are would be in order- I see they're wikified, but I read this printed out and thus couldn't hit those links. Under "Themes" I was a little confused as to who, Diana or Aradia, is the Queen and created the heavens and stars, probably because the sentence describing this is joined with a sentence mentioning both characters, Diana and Ariadna. Under "Structure" I was wondering why lack of cohesion has been cited as a reason for authenticity. Under "Claims questioned", should that be "Leland's writings show that he had no doubt..."? I'm also wondering about the meaning of the last word in the phrase "authentic, but not representative." It seemed to me there were a few places where names of scholars and Wiccans were added without titles or brief notes on who they were, but that might be because I'm a little tired. Again, I apologize if I've made any mistakes or my suggestions aren't particularly helpful. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your edit was good. I've attempted to clarify each of the points that you mention above. Jkelly 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Having gone through it with a fine-tooth comb as a peer reviewer, I'm very impressed with the state of the article, and excited at the prospect of it achieving FA status. Its representation of the available literature is superb, and I believe it is probably even exhaustive. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. As I said on peer review, an excellent and informative article. Extraordinary Machine 13:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very detailed page. Learned something while reading it... --Shane (T - C - E) 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)