Jump to content

Talk:Crippled America/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 09:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) All Earwig issues are correctly attributed quotations Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) A little low on images - one - but acceptable Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass Well written article, thoroughly and straight forwardly covering the topic. Thoroughly referenced to adequate sources with an acceptable image and an accurate infobox. A rapid and collaborative approach to the minor concerns raised. More than deserving of good article status. Well done; good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

@TheGracefulSlick: Some first thoughts in slightly random order.

  • "Like his previous work Time to Get Tough (2011), Crippled America outlined Trump's political agenda as he ran in the U.S. presidential campaign on a conservative platform." suggests that the 2011 book " outlined Trump's political agenda as he ran in the...". I thought that the earlier book was for an earlier election?
  • "NPR" should be in full at first mention. According to the MoS so should CNN, but personally I am willing to let that go.
  • Not a GA fail issue but "as well as the media's portrayal of him —‌ that journalists": should be a non-spaced em dash or a spaced en dash.
  • Optional style point. If it were me I would start the main text of the article with 'In Crippled America Donald Trump describes his views on...'.
  • "On U.S. domestic policy, Trump subdivides the book into chapters on immigration, health care, the economy, education, social programs, and energy in the United States." "On U.S. domestic policy..." and "...in the United States". I think that you only need one of these.
  • There are a number of upper case letters which the MoS would advise against ("man's", "Social Security"), but allowable at GA.
  • "... can be utilized to broker diplomatic deals on an international spectrum." I am honestly not sure what this means. Poetic, but IMO unclear. Perhaps "... the international scene" or similar?
  • "selling out of stock the paperback version and an additional 199,000 hardcover copies by March 2016." Optionally, "...in the paperback..."
  • I have inserted a thin space.
  • "Townsend observed, the book, like Trump's earlier work The Art of the Deal (1987)...". 'Townsend observed that, the book...'?
  • "He furthered assessed Crippled America as "first and foremost, a business book",". 'further'.
  • "criticized the book for lambasting about the author's business ventures". I am not sure that you can "lambast about". And did he really lambast ("scold, reprimand or criticize harshly") his own business ventures?

What an excellent article. I have no idea why it took so long to find a reviewer. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I believe I have addressed your initial thoughts. Thank you in particular for pointing out the Time to Get Tough and Crippled America comparison in the lead; it did not convey what I intended but I think my adjustment clarifies the sentence. Let me know what more I should do. Thanks again!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: Thank you. It turns out that they were all of my thoughts. See my summation above. A fine article. I can only repeat my amazement that it has sat for so long; it was one of the more straightforward I have assessed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crippled_America/GA1&oldid=1038144415"