Talk:Life at the Bottom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that i'm gone for the month of November, so if you need me to make any corrections, it might take me a while to respond. I'll try my best to work on things as an IP, but there might be a few days in between my responses. Sorry. (Silver seren) 128.194.234.46 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will take that under advisement. -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 6, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Writing quality is pretty good throughout, though I would suggest seeking out some copyeditors who are previously uninvolved with the article, by posting request to WP:GOCE and also to talkpages of relevant WikiProjects.
2. There are some short paragraphs and one-sentence-long paragraphs and two-sentence-long paragraphs. These should be merged, or expanded upon.
3. Critical reception sect = works should be italicized.
4. Critical reception sect = Can redlinks be created as stubs? (not holding up GA, just a thought.)
5. Missing = categories. something like non-fiction books, 2001 books, etc.
6. Lede/intro = too short. Per WP:LEAD, please expand it, so it functions as an adequate summary and standalone smaller version encapsulating information from the sects of the entire article.
7. Missing = See also sect = any related portals? links to other wiki articles?
8. Missing = External links related to the book. Please remove this link to Google Books. Instead, please add one or two links about the author or to the author's official website(s), and to that of the book description at the website of its publisher.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Can the short paragraphs in the Themes and Style sects, be expanded a bit more with further info from additional WP:RS secondary sources?

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes, neutral presentation and wording.

5. Article stability? No major issues upon inspection of article edit history and talk page history.

6. Images?: One fair use image, appropriate rationale on image page.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. -- Cirt (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• 1.1. Done. I've left notices here and here as a request for copyeditors to review the article. So, this really isn't "done" until they do so, but i'm just labeling it as that for now.

Copyediting completed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• 1.2. Since this is essentially referring to 3, see my answer to that one.
• 1.3. Done.
• 1.4. Possibly, but i'd rather not try to go and do that now. Once November is over and I can log in again, i'll definitely see about doing that. And, if it wouldn't be possible, i'll find an overarching article to redirect it to.
• 1.5. Done.
• 1.6. Done. Okay, the lede has been expanded with info about the themes of the work, the overall feel that reviewers had of the style, and the overall positive and negative aspects of the reviews. It has also been copyedited since I expanded it, so I think we're good there.
• 1.7. Done. I have added a link to Spoilt Rotten, the other book of Dalrymple's that had significant importance to the themes of this work as well. I have also put in links to moral relativism, high culture, and political correctness, as they are all themes in the work (unfortunately, themes that aren't really discussed by the reviewers). Dalrymple explains how moral relativism, combined with political correctness, has been caused by intellectuals and how it has affected the people of England and the police of England in the sense that they do not act when a case involves people of other cultures or ethnicity's, as they would be seen as racist or against that culture and working for the "white agenda". Dalrymple also explains how high culture is good for society, but that England in recent years has been focusing on becoming more like the lower class and abandoning high culture because it is seen as "snobbish" and aristocratic.
• 1.8. Done. There's now a link to Dalrymple's page on the Manhatten Institute website, along with a link to the Life at the Bottom page there, since that is where he publishes most of his works as essays. Then, there's a link to the Life at the Bottom page on his publisher, Ivan R. Dee's, website. I'm not sure how you want the EL's to be worded, however.
• 3. I'm not sure. I'll see what I can do, but i've pretty much got every single possible source on the internet, I believe, in this article already. There were two paywall ones I didn't use, since I couldn't access the information. But, other than that, this is it. I'll see if more can be wrung from the current sources.

3.0. Done. I've expanded the single sentence "paragraph" in the Themes section and added another review to the Style section. I hope that makes them long enough. If not, I guess I can scrounge around for some more.

165.91.173.213 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Will revisit this soon. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review followup

1. Good job on expansion of lede, copyediting, see also sect, EL sect.
2. Please add a couple portals to See also sect, using {{Portal box}}.
3. Short paragraphs, one and two-sentence-long-paragraphs. Sects = Background, Content, Themes = please expand these para, or merge them somewhere.
4. Critical reception - can this be expanded a bit more with some other sources and a bit more significant discussion from them?
5. Redlinks = not holding up GA, but can these be created as stubs?

-- Cirt (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Done. Books and Literature portals added.

3. Done. Sections have been moved around to create longer paragraphs and the first paragraph in the Themes section has been expanded.

4. Done. I have expanded some of the quotations into full sentence and reorganized the section into two paragraphs instead of one for easier reading.

5. Done. I will deal with making the articles later, so I removed the link to Capitalism magazine and redirected the Carolina Journal link to its parent foundation, the John Locke Foundation. Now there are no more redlinks in the article.

165.91.166.182 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

GA passed

Thanks for being so responsive to the GA Reviewer recommendations. Most appreciated. Thanks again for that behavior, -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)