Jump to content

Talk:The Wiccan Web

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron talk 03:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that The Wiccan Web lists multiple deities of ritual cybersex? Source: Telesco, Patricia; Knight, Sirona (2001). "Computer Wizardry". The Wiccan Web. New York, New York: Citadel Press. pp. 100–110. ISBN 0-8065-2197-X.

Created by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 17:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Wiccan Web; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Claiming this. Obviously new enough, well over the length requirement. The sourcing is generally good although I'm not sure where in the SA review that the reviewer says the spells are potentially harmful - he's mostly clowning about the inconsistency in the herbs. I like the concept of the first hook but I feel like the phrasing doesn't quite do the silliness justice. What about a version that actually names some of the recommended cybersex deities? I feel like it's pretty hooky that it suggests calling upon the warrior-queen Medb for "sensual surfing" for example. ♠PMC(talk) 19:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the implication that he's saying rubbing oil on your computer will damage it is pretty clear, but I've trimmed just in case. Some hooks on the ALT0 line:
      • ALT0a: ... that The Wiccan Web associates multiple deities with ritual cybersex, including the Celtic warrior queen Medb?
      • ALT0b: ... that The Wiccan Web suggests calling upon the Celtic warrior queen Medb for ritual cybersex?
    • I like plain ALT0 better and ALT1 most of all, but I think this works too. Vaticidalprophet 20:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I'm approving; all of the potential hooks are hooky and properly cited, and there are no other DYK-prohibitive issues with the article. My preference is ALT0a/ALT0b or ALT1, with ALT2 farther behind. IMO nom preference for hook should be taken into account where possible so barring any specific reason not to run ALT1, it should be ALT1. ♠PMC(talk) 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was about to promote ALT0b, but the "cybersex" sentence lacks a footnote. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion 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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:The Wiccan Web/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 00:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi vat, I'm taking this.

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Prose, POV, and coverage

[edit]
Lead:
  • Para 1: by Patricia Telesco and Sirona Knight published by Citadel Press, an imprint of Kensington Publishing. - It is somewhat strange to read "book by ... published by..." in such close proximity. I feel this is because this might be missing a word, e.g. "book written by Patricia Telesco and Sirona Knight and published by Citadel Press, an imprint of Kensington Publishing." (but then we have the construction "Patricia Telesco and Sirona Knight and published by", which is an issue in itself).
  • I really don't have any other substantive comments. It's short but also well-written and summarizes the article quite well.
Synopsis:
  • Para 2: This section of the book received criticism; a Wiccan reviewer felt the spells sounded "hokey" and compared their ritual chants to "high-school cheers", while a secular reviewer felt elements of some rituals, such as rubbing tinctures on a computer screen, were bizarre. - This sounds like something that belongs in the reception section, but I can see why this is mentioned here.
  • Para 3: The next section of The Wiccan Web - By the way, are sections the same as chapters, or does each section consist of multiple chapters? Are these chapters being described in the order in which they appear in the book (e.g. in the book, does the content in paragraph 2 come before paragraph 3)?
Publication and reception:
Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

No formatting issues.

Due to the low number of references, I will spot-check all online references from this version.

  • 1 (Fisher, Barbara (2002). "Book Reviews: The Wiccan Web: Surfing the Magic On The Internet". newWitch.) - Everything verified. The part a secular reviewer felt elements of some rituals, such as rubbing tinctures on a computer screen, were bizarre. is supported by ref 2, though, while ref 1 only supports a Wiccan reviewer felt the spells sounded "hokey" and compared their ritual chants to "high-school cheers". So this checks out.
  • 2 (Thorpe, David (13 March 2012). "The Wiccan Web". Something Awful.) - Verified, with the caveat above.
  • 7 ("About Our Imprints & Publishing Partners". Kensington Publishing. 2023.) - Verifies the text Citadel Press, an imprint of Kensington Publishing but not much else. I'm assuming good faith that the other sources support the rest of the sentence.
  • 9 (Hagan, Lisa (2023). "About Us". Lisa Hagan.) - I don't see where Paraview Literary Agency, or anything else in the sentence, is mentioned. What is this supposed to verify?

@Vaticidalprophet: There is one issue above with ref 9. I will assume good faith on the print sources, so everything should be good to go after the issue regarding ref 9 is resolved. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hagan's affiliation with Paraview is reported in the book itself, cite 8 (We would also like to thank Sirona’s agent, Lisa Hagan at Paraview, for her support, integrity, and friendship). The additional ref is supporting what sort of books she focuses on (Lisa has seen that there is an audience and a demand for the books that she loves – but is not limited to – genres such as alternative health, paranormal research and extraordinary memoirs). Vaticidalprophet 18:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • The sole image has an appropriate fair-use rationale.
  • Copyvio check reveals only quotes and proper names.
Epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.