Jump to content

Talk:A Journey/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reception

A few quotes ready for a reception section.

Financial Times

"Tony Blair’s memoir is part psychodrama, part treatise on the frustrations of leadership in a modern democracy. It is written in a chummy style with touches of Mills & Boon."

Lionel Barber, Financial Times

"Blair comes across as likable, if manipulative; capable of dissembling while wonderfully fluent; in short, a brilliant modern politician (whatever his moans about the media)."

Lionel Barber, Financial Times

Source: Barber, Lionel (3 September 2010). "Tony Blair: A Journey". Financial Times. Retrieved 5 September 2010.

The Observer

"It is Tony Blair's boast that he wrote every word in longhand "on hundreds of notepads". That I believe. He was the most brilliant communicator of his era as a platform speaker or television interviewee, but he can be a ghastly writer. Anyone thinking about taking this journey needs to be given a travel advisory: much of the prose is execrable."

Andrew Rawnsley, The Observer

"No cliche is avoided. Loins are girded, leashes are strained at, die are cast, lights appear at the end of tunnels and wounds are rubbed with salt. The Vatican is "an amazing place". Princess Anne "is a chip right off the old man's block". Princess Diana "captured the essence of an era". Derry Irvine is "like the proverbial dog with the bone". Many of the chapters are as badly planned as the invasion of Iraq."

Andrew Rawnsley, The Observer

"I could say that it is a pity that Tony Blair did not employ a ghostwriter to prettify the prose and organise his recollections more elegantly. I could observe that he is straining after the faux-intimate style of the autobiographies of footballers or models, and that was only to be expected from the politician who turned himself into Britain's first celebrity prime minister."

Andrew Rawnsley, The Observer

"[T]his is a more honest political memoir than most and more open in many respects than I had anticipated."

Andrew Rawnslty, The Observer

"Banalities tumble across these pages, but there are also thoughtful and significant meditations about modern politics."

Andrew Rawnsley, The Observer

Source: Rawnsley, Andrew (5 September 2010). "Tony Blair's A Journey: Andrew Rawnsley's verdict". The Observer. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 5 September 2010.

Daily Mail

"More Bridget Jones than Henry Kissinger."

Daily Mail

Source: "Blair's 'Bridget Jones' memoirs: I was stupid to mess with the Mail on Sunday". Mail Online. Associated Newspapers Ltd. 4 September 2010. Retrieved 5 September 2010.

Independent on Sunday

"Tony Blair's 'A Journey' is a revelatory book in many ways, offering a glimpse into the mind of a political leader during tumultuous times. Of course, it is a document designed for history, which, Blair hopes, will provide some personal context to much of the political decision-making during his time in office. But it is much more than that; it is sufficiently candid and detailed to give us some insight into the man's underlying psychology, and sometimes it is the smallest detail that can be the most interesting."

Geoffrey Beattie, Independent on Sunday

Source: Beattie, Geoffrey (5 September 2010). "Inside the mind of Tony Blair". The Independent on Sunday. London: Independent Newspapers Ltd. Retrieved 5 September 2010.

Comments

Are you going to include these fascinating quotations and analyses to the article? I think that would be useful. ValenShephard (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the plan. I'm collecting them together first so it'll be easier to actually write the section. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Good to hear, that will be very useful for the article. I could help you put some of them in later if you want. Keep it up, ValenShephard (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that would be great. I'm hoping to get this up to GA or even FA status eventually so any help you can give in improving it would be much appreciated. I've made a start at adding some stuff, but I think it will probably need a bit more work doing on it. Please feel free to review and change anything you feel doesn't sound right, and by all means add any more quotes you can find. There's a lot of stuff out there about this. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Drop me a line on my talk page if you have stuff here that needs adding and improving, so we can delegate. I'm busy on a few big pages so I won't always be able to check back here. So drop me a line about whats happening here. From what I have read and seen myself, the book has gotten mostly mixed to negative reviews, what do you think? If that is true, we should aim to give proper weight in the analysis of the book. Best wishes, ValenShephard (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It does seem to be getting more negative than positive reviews, I must admit. Not only in the media, but also (reportedly) from some of those who Blair mentions. I'll try to add a bit more and keep you posted on what's going on. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, its just in the interest of due weight to different viewpoints. If time goes on and it is proven that most reviews are negative, or swinging to the negative, we should reflect that here. ValenShephard (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some more reviews

Balancing the Brown part of the synopsis

If anyone has the book, can you please add some of the nice things he actually said about Brown - he did say some, or so he has said on television, and as the current synopis is pretty one sided, I think it needs balancing. He definitely credits him with being a good chancellor and a committed public servant, as well as iirc he is maybe still friendly with him?. Anyway, that was all I could remember, but I don't want to start detailing it without the book to hand.

That rather negative synopsis is what has been reported as far as I have seen, but yeah, if he did say some good things they could probably go in. But if he was mostly negative to Brown, we have to show that as part of due weight. Not try to 'balance it out' or something. ValenShephard (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added a sentence about the positive things he said about Brown. I think perhaps we could say something like that overall he is negative about Brown, but praises him as a good chancellor and committed public servant. I'm sure Blair probably thought he had other good qualities too, although that'll have to wait till someone who's read the book drops by here. As I learnt from working on the Premiership of Gordon Brown article, there seems to be more negative than positive stuff written about him by the media - not all of it entirely fair in my opinion - so that trend probably continues. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not talking about his media perception, or even the media coverage of the book - I'm talking about the actual synopsis section, which should only reflect the actual balance of the book. And like I said, from what he has said on TV, he suggested he wasn't totally critical of Brown in the book, as the previous version suggested. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Ironically, I had it in my hands today, but I only had time to peruse the rather large number of pictures it includes. MickMacNee (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK entry

I've submitted the article to DYK as it has been expanded sufficiently in the last few days to qualify (see here). Please feel free to suggest a more interesting alternative. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Spending Review Of 2005 That Never Happened

During the Andrew Marr interview that coincided with the book launch, Tony Blair stated that he thought that a spending review was needed in 2005, but that he was unable to start one because Gordon Brown was politically too strong. Is this discussed in the book? If so, then it is dynamite - the deficit is going to be a major issue for years to come - and it would certainly be worth mentioning in the article. New Thought (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should go in if it is mentioned. I still haven't read the book yet. Unfortunately, I'm still on my local library's waiting list. Providing my local library doesn't fall victim to the Tory spending cuts I should get to the top eventually. In the meantime, if anyone has read the book and wants to add information, page references, etc, to the article, please feel free to contribute. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:A Journey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MartinPoulter (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments before I do a full review. My first reaction is that this is excellent work, both comprehensive and showing an exemplary style. It marshalls an impressive set of references to give multiple viewpoints on a deeply controversial subject.

  • A small change I'd like to see concerns images. There is an image of Katie Price. She isn't related to the book except a reviewer used her in an analogy. The Price-Andre spat isn't going to mean much to anyone who doesn't follow UK gossip, and I doubt it'll have a lasting cultural impact. I know we're under pressure to add images, but this one adds nothing. I'm tempted to exclude the Andrew Marr picture for similar reasons, but I'm more persuadable here.
  • The long quotation from Geoffrey Beattie's review appears twice; once as a pull-quote and once in the article. There's no need for this duplication of such a long quote. Maybe have a shorter quotation in the article and shorter one in the pull-quote? The same applies to the Reg Keys quote.
  • Wikilinks are advised against in quotes, but then again they are necessary to help international readers get cultural references such as Mills and Boon. I'm not sure about this: it might be necessary to convert a couple of quotes to indirect speech.
    • I wasn't aware wikilinks were advised against in quotes, but I think here an exception can be made. It would be difficult to paraphrase the quote because it's a bit of a satirical comment; I would worry readers would think Wikipedia was interpreting normal comments to be satirical. wackywace 15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The guideline says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." - so it's not absolutely ruled out, and it's being used in the article specifically to avoid confusing the reader, so I think it may be okay for cultural references. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Is the politics.co.uk blog a suitable source for the article. I think the sensible thing is to have reviews from published reliable sources in the article body, and reviews in significant blogs as external links. Again, if there's something special about this blog, then I'm persuadable. Still, the quotes from that review are quite extensive, giving it greater weight in effect than some prominent published reviews.
    • I've shortened the quote from the blog, but I don't see it as an unreliable source. Watching television on the day the book was launched reporters mentioned several reviews by political blogs, including the opinion of politics.co.uk. wackywace 15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The caption to the first image: it would seem more neutral if it just said that the book discusses Blair's decision to take the UK to war against Iraq in 2003.
  • in the lede: "criticised Blair's writing" - specify: do you mean writing style? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Wackywace for making such rapid improvements. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Another couple of minor points:

  • The heading "Announcement; donation" stands out as odd, especially as there are two paragraphs. How about "Donation of proceeds" as a separate heading for the second paragraph?
  • There's a lengthy quote (three sentences) from the head of Random House in the first paragraph. It's just promotional boilerplate and isn't itself surprising. I'd cut it down to just the first sentence (i.e. end after "British politics")
  • The Andrew Lake quote is another one that appears twice and doesn't add much. The "Mandelson... sales." section is short and snappy enough to be an appealing pull-quote. The quote in the article could then finish after "first day".

MartinPoulter (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC) ) After a more careful reading, I'm going to pass this as an exemplary GA. I'd like to see in future developments some information about publication history. For instance: in the North American version of the book, the subtitle is "My Political Life"; A Journey has also been released as an audiobook. These facts need a mention somewhere in the article, probably in an "Editions" list: see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article. However, the main goal of creating a neutral, verifiable, well-written, stable, broad, illustrated article has been achieved. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Journey/Archive_1&oldid=922294401"