| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article lacks any appropriate academic sources. It reads mostly from a bias of personal investment (there's for example nothing on how the Church of Satan has been received by society, nothing on its judicial bankruptcy, etc). It would be unthinkable for an article on the Catholic Church to be reflective only of how it thinks of itself and that same commitment to objective analysis should be applied here. There's been a number of external studies done on the Church of Satan. Why not include some of those?
Thanks, Hermetic Pilgrim (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Sotakeit
- From what you've said, it seems you're already aware of the main issues. I know nothing on the subject, so I can't pass opinion of the veracity of the content, but here is what I picked up on what can be improved:
- You're right. The majority of the sources are either a) publsiher/authored by Church of Satan members/leadership or b) derived from interviews with members/leadership. The article needs to reference other outside sources to give a more balance view.
- Several statements obviously needing sitation
- Other texts, such as The Satanic Bible, also by LaVey, serve the most specifically as a reference for Satanic dogma.
- The Church of Satan evaluates active members for the Priesthood by their accomplishment in society
- A Satanic funeral for naval machinist-repairman, third-class Edward Olsen, was performed at the request of his wife, complete with a chrome-helmeted honor guard.
- Maybe more of a personal preference, but for citations such as number 22, it may be better to split it into a seperate 'Notes' section (as here).
- Refs numbers 10 and 11. What are they? Books? Websites? Interivews? Sotakeit (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)