Talk:Spoilt Rotten/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 23:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: two found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~Stray sentences should be consolidated into paragraphs.~~

~~And the rather dense paragraph in the Critical reception section should be broken up.~~

~~In the lead, reviews contain material not found in the article, see WP:LEAD.~~
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
ref #10[2] supposedly supports the statement: "He then examines a newspaper article urging reform of the British prison system This article is about comments by a Catholic prelate, nowhere does this cite support the statement. Now ref#8 This issue is un-addressed, I fail to see how this article is relevant to the analysis of the book. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ref #44 Adair, Tom (28 August 2010). "Book Review: Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality". The Scotsman. Retrieved 18 September 2010.[dead link] is a dead link Jezhotwells (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise spotchecks OK

Assume good faith for off-line sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~No real evidence that this book is particularly influential apart from a few reviews - Not sure until I see evidence of some notability, awards, etc. -~~
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
~~File:StevePinker.jpg does not seem to have a correct license. Otherwise images OK~~
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should remove ref#8 as I fail to see what purpose it serves. The dead link needs addressing, broadness of coverage needs addressing. It is possible that this book is so insignificant that it fails the notability guidelines. I shall make a final determination on Boxing Day. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think that this is as far as we can go. I shall list this as a GA. I Shall leave the question of notability for others to determine. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to do the review. I will try to get round to addressing the points you raise in the next couple of days. Jprw (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have tried to rectify the main failings you cite above, with what degree of success I'm not sure. My main worry is point 2 above – what do you think is the best way of dealing with this, perhaps removing it altogether, or referencing it in another way? Jprw (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now simply deleted the reference from 2 above, and fixed and amended the dead link. I think that the main problem now is point 3. The book has been fairly widely reviewed, but has not won any awards or achieved any exceptional kind of notability. Jprw (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.