Talk:The Satanic Bible/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 05:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this one a whirl and see what I can learn.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are some of the citations missing page numbers?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The Schreck citations are to a website that lacks page numbers. The LaVey citations that are missing page numbers are from previous editions of the Satanic Bible to which I do not have access. I have a PDF file that contains all of the introductions to the various editions, but the page numbers do not correspond to those in the original versions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not a big issue in the current version. Just a few refs are at issue. If this goes to WP:FAC, you will have to track everything down. I won't hold it up over this although it is not really resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Understood. I'll see what I can do about it, and will keep that in mind if I try to get it to be a featured article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The article has a choppy organization. The two- and three-line sections should be expanded or merged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You have expanded some sections. It would still help if the Preface, The Book of Satan and The Book of Leviathan were expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do :] I've found a good number of new sources which I'm trying to work in. I'm also expanding the Reception section to make it a bit more balanced; I hadn't realized how slanted it was towards negative reactions before. This may take me a few days, as I'm working on this around schoolwork as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me know when you are done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I think I'm done! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD now checks in at 3452 characters of readable prose. For an article this length it should probably be about 2500 and anything longer than 3000 is excessive. Please cut the LEAD down to less than 3000 characters. Everything else looks good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I have done so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:LEAD
  • This article is very new territory for me. The precise meaning of certain terms in this context might be useful. Can you link rituals, philosophy, sacred scripture (or at least scripture), God, and projection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    I have linked to all of these words (as well as atheistic) except for projection. The only article we have on projection in the psychological sense is psychological projection, which is talking about something somewhat different. Do you think there is a better article? I'll keep looking. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The LEAD is a bit thin. You might be able to craft a second paragraph if you make sure a summary of each section is included in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
History
  • Why is this the first time you mention religion? Does it mean something counter-intuitive in this context? Link please.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    I have reworded a bit to add "religion" to the lead as well. I guess I did not think to include it, as I mentioned that it was the text of LaVeyan Satanism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "articles he had previously published in a Church of Satan newsletter called The Cloven Hoof" - where the articles or the newsletter called by this name? If it is the latter revise to "articles he had previously published in The Cloven Hoof, a Church of Satan newsletter."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    Fixed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Dedication
  • Do not WP:OVERLINK. If a name is linked once, then the subsequent uses should generally be delinked and only refer to the last name unless it is ambiguous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    I used AWB to find the multiple wikilinks and remove them. I understand about referring to the last name only, but I felt that that was a little awkward in this section where most were called by their full names. If you disagree, I'm happy to change it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    I think even in this case last name only is preferable for second references to subjects.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    Alright, I believe that's all of the repeats. Just a note: as I expand sections, I may accidentally link things twice. I'll be sure to go through with AWB periodically to remove double links. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Introductions
The Book of Lucifer
Reception