Wikipedia:Peer review/Modern Pagan views on LGBT people/archive1

Modern Pagan views on LGBT people

I've previously undergone a huge cleanup and reconstruction of this topic, which was recently merged from its original home at Wiccan views on LGBT people. I would like to make this article as good as it can be and would heavily like some input on how others think it would best be accomplished.

Thanks, Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gwen Hope, I see three areas for improvement in the article.

• Most important is the use of reliable secondary sources. If you have a question about reliable sources, please consult WP:RS. Footnote 3 cites an article for a journal. If this journal has sound editorial controls or the article cited is subject to peer review, then this would be a good example of a reliable source. Footnotes 2 and 8 refer to the same group blog, WitchVox. Blogs are generally not considered to be reliable sources.

• The second area for improvement is organization. The article is chopped up into many sections, subsections, and sub-subsections, with some of these containing a single sentence. Some of the section names could be simplified, too. The first section could be shortened to "Demographics" and the subsections could be eliminated since there is about ten lines of text for the whole section. Make one paragraph for sexual orientation and the other one for gender.

• The third area for improvement is neutral tone. For example, the first sentence in the subsection "Gender dualism and stereotypes" the article says "it is unsurprising..." This is the expression of an opinion in Wikipedia voice, so these expressions of opinions and attitudes should be avoided.

I hope you found these comments helpful, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: I've tried (sporadically at times) to improve upon the article as you've mentioned. I hope it looks better than it did, while there are still many areas where room for improvement is very possible and even needed. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: Thanks for the note. I can see improvements in the language of the article, much work on sources (including archiving), and some needed simplification of the structure. We are all volunteers here, so it's generally understood that you can make contributions on your own timetable.

I should note that we are coming up to the limits of my competence in offering helpful suggestions. I offered some general principles about evaluating sources, but I lack the requisite knowledge of the subject matter to properly assess your sources. When I decided to contribute to a peer review, I saw the length of time that had passed with no comments, and I figured that it was unlikely that this article would receive a peer review. Knowing that I was inadequate for the task, I thought that a few potentially helpful suggestions absent a full peer review would be better than no response at all.

I have one more suggestion that is potentially helpful. The article over relies on quotations. For Wikipedia policy on quotations, please see MOS:QUOTE. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: I've begun restructuring and adding more sources, nesting quotations in the inline citations and such, instead of listing them plain text. Do you feel this is a better practice? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: Many articles I work on have no quotes at all. The "quotiest article" I have worked on contains several smallish quotes of either fragments or single sentences, almost all of which are packed into a single section: Samuel May Williams#Death and legacy. Of course, I am writing about a person's life and you are writing about a belief system, so the subject matter is completely different. Another risk you have with quotations, especially extended ones is a problem of imbalance. It amplifies the voice of the writer whom you are quoting compared to other writers whom you are not quoting. I have no firm answer for you, but these are a few things to consider. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)