Talk:Occupy (book)
 | Occupy (book) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 11, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupy (book) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Occupy (Chomsky book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Preliminary review
[edit]Looks good from a first pass. Im now reading the pamphlet to see how faithfully the article reflects Chomsky's work, and expect to complete the review in the next week or so. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, and hope you enjoy the read! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I've finished reading the book and all the sources. Im going to promote as the article now passes all GA critera. Won't be for a few days though, as before completeing I want to offer a little more feedback and make a few more optional copy edits. Have ran out of wiki time for now, sorry about the delay. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Full review
[edit]As indicated previously, Im delighted to promote this article as it meets all the GA criteria. As an old school reviewer, I usually like to give advice on what needs to be done to improve the article to FA status. In this case, the TLDR version of my advice is simply don't. I've three main reasons for this:
This may change in years to come, but currently the book doesn't seem to have received sufficient coverage in secondary sources to be a suitable FA candidate. Secondly, I suspect the article might need considerable re working, as while it meets the GA criteria, it doesn't seem to fully comply with standard practice and all applicable guidelines. As a specific example, you have a whole paragraph giving a mini biography of the author, rather than leaving that information to the main article. I think its helpful in this instance, as the main article is so long, and you've so nicely summarized the relevant info, but I doubt you'd find the majority of FA reviewers would agree. Thirdly, although this article is IMO well above average for a GA candidate, it also seems well below the standard of some of your other work, e.g. the beautifully written Magic, Witchcraft and the Otherworld, so perhaps further improving this article isn't a high on your list of priorities, and so it might be a waste of time to spell out all the improvements needed.
That said, it's still a very nice article, I like the way you've summarized the main themes for our readers, and you have a very good eye for pics. Thanks for writing this valuable and interesting contribution! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Irish Times source
[edit]- McMonagle, Sarah (2012-09-15). "Paperbacks: Our pick of the latest releases". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2023-04-17.