Wikipedia:Peer review/New Age/archive1

New Age[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because: several editors have been diligently working on this article for some time; and we would like to see New Age become a Good Article. A fresh perspective with additional editors will help to refine the article to the next level for nomination to Good Article Status.

Thanks, ~ All is One ~ (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

There are five "citation required" tags in the Philosophy and cosmology section. These should be attended to as soon as possible.
To avoid confusion I suggest that you rename the Notes section "Notes and references", and rename the References section "Bibliography"
You need to use a consistent style for page numbers and ranges. At the moment you have p. and pg for single pages, pp., pgs and pages for ranges. Suggest you standardise with p. and pp.
Similarly, you need a standard form for access dates of on-line sources. These need to show day, month and year in each case
Many of the references are not properly formatted.
Some ISBNs are missing

It might be a good idea if you work on these while I work through the prose.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I have added four more citation required tags to the Terminology part of the Belief section. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uli Kunkel

A couple months ago, I moved the New Age page to New Age spirituality. The move was reverted by an editor who gave the explanation that New Age is a broad concept with aspects that exceed spirituality, and therefore the move was inappropriate. I just saw the move back only yesterday, and I am amenable to accepting it, but on certain accurate conditions that can be stated as simple criticisms of the current article.

In the simplest terms, that the New Age article (paraphrasing) "is not about New Age spirituality exclusively" does not mean that there needs to be no New Age spirituality article. In fact, any topic with lots of branching aspects needs to have articles for each of its aspects. The lack of a specific article on "New Age sprituality" —arguably New Age's most important aspect —to me, says a lot about how "New Age" itself says a lot of nothing.

The problem of course with making a series of articles about a concept that says nothing at all is that more articles means that each element within the nothing concept can be dealt with in more detail, and thus reveal flaws in the concept as a whole. This is a good thing. From Wikipedia's point of view, we're all here to explain things, such as to help other people understand things. The interesting thing about this New Age article at the moment is that it has all of the basic generalistic elements of a serious article —it touches on many other concepts, it starts with the most general idea, it goes into details down below, etc.

Anyway, start by developing the individual aspects: New Age spirituality might be an interesting article. Criticism of New Age is no doubt not far off, but I can deal with seeding that. Regards, -Ste vertigo 05:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]