Support - Great article to me, excellent presentation . I will give it a for that. Article must be featured on the main page. Mastermind08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Contains no inline citations, contains unsourced statements, has an inadequate lead section, contains stub sections, contains absurd platitudes (religious beliefs "are a force for good, and, sometimes, ill in the world"). It's also poorly organised- there's a section on 'spirituality' which consists mainly of quotes from Gandhi. HenryFlower 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Object. The article seems OK (although I agree somewhat with Henry's objection) - but Religion is a 'big topic' like Physics, Mathematics and the like. I don't think it should contain a lot of explanations - but merely lay out the broad spread of available Wikipedia content in a well organised fashion. The Physics article is a great example of how to do that. Almost the entire text of this article could be placed into a 'lower tiered' discussion of religion in general that would be prominently referenced - but not a part of - that top level article. I'd prefer to see this called something else with a new Religion article replacing and referencing it. SteveBaker 15:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: page layout can be improved. Images seem to be all over the place. –Tutmøsis · (Msg Me) 02:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...also expansion wouldn't hurt due to the fact some sections are large and some are short. A subject greatly studied/discussed so information shouldn't be a problem to find. –Tutmøsis · (Msg Me) 02:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The information is broad and comprehensive, but the lack of in-line citations presents a concern. -- Kingof♥♦♣♠ 05:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. No inline citation. And per above--Dwaipayanc 10:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object:
No inline citation plus I find the organization of sections odd - why is religious belief tucked away at number 5, and is really short.
There generally needs to be a better effort in referencing and detailing views. For instance, sociology and social anthropology are mentioned briefly but there is little attempt to explain these perspectives or to provide references (and these are important sociology has its very roots in the decline of religion in modern society; and anthropology has its roots in religious ritual). Rather, quotations from theologians and philosophers - plus a bunch from Gandhi - are given (though strangely, theology or theologian do not appear as words in the article) as well as a sizable and rather opaque quote from another encyclopedia (i think wikipedia should avoid directly quoting other encylcopedias in this way as much as possible) without explanation.
The models of religion in this article which come from Development of religion - what is the source for saying that these are the main models? is it a widely accepted source? or is it just one theorist or how one book lays it out? (incidentally, the "religion is the opiate of the masses" quote belongs directly to Karl Marx who is referred to in the development article but is strangely missing here).
The religion, metaphysics and cosmology section (and maybe the religious beliefs section too) is a stub - FAs shouldnt have stubs.
No mention of New Age religion. Bwithh 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Roman Catholicism + Protestantism (christianity) are and have been the world's leading religion, it seems their should be a percent greater of information regarding them, instead of so much information on obscure relgions, meditations, and rituals. The article gives the impression from the pictures that religion is practiced only by savages**
for that. Article must be featured on the main page. Mastermind 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)