Wikipedia:Peer review/Zoroastrianism/archive2

Zoroastrianism

Previous peer review

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know of any problems on this article, so that they can be improved.

Thanks, Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, I have read this interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead does not adequately summarize the article per
  WP:LEAD
  - My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but many of the sections seem not to be in the lead at all.
• Biggest problem I see with this getting to GA or especially FA is the lack of references. For example the Terminology section has zero refs, and the whole Distinguishing characteristics section only has one ref (with none in the Other charateristics section). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{
  WP:V
• The ref which claims to be from the Guardian is really from the Independent (they are not the same)
• The article also uses two different styles of refs - superscript numbers and parentheses with the author's name and year. Either style is fine according to the MOS, but the article should only use one style throughout.
• The article is fairly list-y in places - to improve flow the lists should be converted to text wherever possible.
• Also to improve flow there are several short paragraphs (one or two sentences) which should be combined with others or expanded where possible.
• The captions do not always make it clear what connection the image has to the article - for example one caption is just "Farvahar. Persepolis, Iran." without further explanation - is this a modern work of art or an ancient carving or what? I guess that it is the same as a "Faravahar" which is shown in a later image with a bit of explanation and it appears similar to the lead image in the infobox - but there is no text on wither spelling of the word. If it is important enough to be the symbol of the religion in the infobox, shouldn't it be explained more?
• The image File:Zartosht.jpg is fair use and needs a valid fair use rationale for its onclusion here (I did not check all the other images)
• I would start the History section with Zoroaster and explain who he was to readers unfamiliar with him
• The History section also ends in the 16th century - while there is some history in other sections, this needs to be expanded to include the last several hundred years.
• I thought Freddie Mercury was at least born into a Zoroastrian family - perhaps worth mentioning
• It is often useful to have a model article for ideas and examples to follow - Islam seems to be the only FA on a major religion and may be a useful model. Anekantavada might also be a good article to look at for ideas on presenting beliefs.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at

He caught most of the points I would have made. Were it me, I might consider adopting a structure similar to Catholic Church, placing a brief description of its origins first, then a discussion of its beliefs (which are probably the most important single aspect of any religion anyway), worship and prayer, organization if any, numerical data, cultural influence, and history last of them.

The notable adherents section, while interesting, probably takes up too much space, and sections to list single names generally aren't seen that well. So, in this case, "terminology" (or maybe "Name?") might come first, with the Beliefs section written out in regular paragraphs rather than bullet points and integrated with the later "Principal beliefs" section.

Whether "Religious texts" would go before or after beliefs I don't know, but probably think in this case at least "Scripture/Avesta" should go before beliefs, considering that is the basis of the beliefs.

In the relation with other religions section, it seems to stress Zoroastrianism's primacy to the almost exclusion of interrelations. I know I read that Zoroastrians consider some aspects of Abrahamic religion "heretical", because of the question regarding creation and usage by the "good god" and, "evil one" being markedly different between the two faiths, and that should probably be referenced.

History section in general might be shortened, or maybe the entire article expanded a bit to help remove what might seem to be an imbalance in favor of history. Some sentences, like the first sentence of "Principal beliefs", need to be not told "in-universe", so it might say, "Zoroastrians believe Ahura Mazda to be the beginning and the end..." Total number of citations could definitely be improved, with as I remember one or two per paragraphs considered a good starting point. That's all that comes to mind right now, above what has already been said. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]