Talk:Sweet Revenge: The Intimate Life of Simon Cowell

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sweet Revenge: The Intimate Life of Simon Cowell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, first thing's first; there's a complete absence of a summary of the book. What does it say? What's in it? In many ways, this article falls at the first hurdle; while the contents of the book aren't all that should be included in a Wikipedia article, it definitely needs to be there!

More specific comments:

• Is impresario really the word you want to use?
• The lead is very short; it should really summarise the article as a whole. Also, while there's no ban on citations in the lead (and, indeed, they are sometimes required) they generally won't be needed for uncontroversial material as everything in the lead should be repeated in the article body anyway.
• "and in exchange, he was allowed to speak to Cowell's mother" In exchange? I don't follow.
• "finding out that a colleague of Cowell's was not supporting the book" Vague; I worry that the section as a whole is a bit vague/weaselly. Are you trying to avoid running into BLP issues?
• "Hyde enjoyed Bower's "grimly entertaining tales of [his] shows' micromanagement" and" The "[his]" is ambiguous, here; I assume you mean Cowell, but, grammatically speaking...
• The information about serialisation and the launch party are not really details about reception; they could go into a release section, along with information about publisher and publication date (and associated).
• The reception section reads a bit like a series of quotes. Not the worst crime, but neither is it the best way to write a reception section. There's some nice advice here.
• The rationale on File:Cowell Bower book.jpeg is a bit lacking. Template:Book cover fur may be helpful.

I'm afraid this article falls short of GA standard; it just doesn't include all the information that would be required for an article of this sort. I'm happy to leave this open to give you a chance to respond, but I suspect the best option would be to close the review at this time to give you chance to work on expanding the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review.

More specific comments:

• Is impresario really the word you want to use?

Well yes, though it is antiquated. I've changed it to the more prosaic "figure" instead.

• The lead is very short; it should really summarise the article as a whole. Also, while there's no ban on citations in the lead (and, indeed, they are sometimes required) they generally won't be needed for uncontroversial material as everything in the lead should be repeated in the article body anyway.

I've expanded it slightly and removed the cite.

• "and in exchange, he was allowed to speak to Cowell's mother" In exchange? I don't follow.

I clarified the quid pro quo arrangement here.

• "finding out that a colleague of Cowell's was not supporting the book" Vague; I worry that the section as a whole is a bit vague/weaselly. Are you trying to avoid running into BLP issues?

I've accurately paraphrased what the referenced Guardian article says here.

• "Hyde enjoyed Bower's "grimly entertaining tales of [his] shows' micromanagement" and" The "[his]" is ambiguous, here; I assume you mean Cowell, but, grammatically speaking...

Fixed

• The information about serialisation and the launch party are not really details about reception; they could go into a release section, along with information about publisher and publication date (and associated).

Done

• The reception section reads a bit like a series of quotes. Not the worst crime, but neither is it the best way to write a reception section. There's some nice advice here.

I'm going to refine this next week. Could you please place this on hold until then? Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy to wait! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me know when you're ready for me to have another proper look through. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok; I get the feeling that this review is stale; it's been open nearly a month and issues remain outstanding; the article still falls short of GA standards and has not been edited in three weeks. I'm going to close the review at this time; I encourage you to renominate once the article has seen a little expansion. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)