Talk:Witchcraft/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• Some initial comments: I believe that this article falls very short of meeting GA criterion 2, which demands that:

• it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
• reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
• it contains no original research.

• Many sections are either entirely uncited or inadequately cited. For instance, Judaism, Islam, Fox employers, Stregheria, and the Feri Tradition.

• There are many statements such as "In the modern Western world, witchcraft accusations have often accompanied the satanic ritual abuse moral panic. Such accusations are a counterpart to blood libel of various kinds, which may be found throughout history across the globe", which must be sourced to reliable cources.

• There are at least three requests for clarification or citation, two of which have been in place since December 2008.

• There is a section with the title Alleged practices, another of those completely uncited. Who is making or has made those allegations?

• "Social-anthropological interpretations were pioneered in E. E. Evans-Pritchard's 1937 study of 'witchcraft' among the Azande." Why the scare quotes? Was he studyiing something other than witchcraft?

• From Spell casting: "The most important part of a spell is of course the energy the practitioner puts into it – this being done in a variety of ways by many different people." Says who? Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I also have concerns about the scope and neutrality of this article. For instance, the excessive weight given to Japanese fox employers, and the in-universe style of that material's presentation. Is Feri Tradition really relevant?

• I'm concerned as well that the article is not clearly focused on its subject, which it fails to clearly define. Summed up best by the one sentence paragraph in Terminology: "The terms "witch" and "witchcraft" have slightly different meanings in different fields of study." If the terms are not clearly explained then the article's scope is nebulous.

The amount of work required to maintain this article's GA listing seems to me to be considerable, but I am putting it hold for seven days instead of delisting it immediately nevertheless, as someone may be prepared to step up to the plate. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• As these issues remain outstanding, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.