Talk:The Almost Nearly Perfect People/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 02:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a shame that you had to wait so long for getting a review of an article that looks like so interesting.

It is a really solid, well-written article. Hence, I have few comments to do, that are not necessarily problems but most of them just suggestions.

The lead is fine.
I'm not sure it is really a problem but "Brits", "Danes", etc feel a bit informal in my opinion.

Have changed these to "British people" and "Danish population".

"Background" section also contains release info; should it be renamed to something like "Background and release"/"Background and publishing"?

Good idea – done.

Around 0:46 in the BBC interview it's pretty clear to me that he says "It took about four years to research"; why it's stated "5–6 years"?

Hmm, that's odd. Perhaps I read/heard 5–6 years in another source, but I can't seem to find it now. In any case, he does clearly say four in the source so I've changed it. Thanks for pointing that out.

Could you include the range of time in which the interview with Booth happens? It's just too long (89 minutes!) to someone listen to the entire program... You may use parameter "|at="; you may also opt to add "Type=Audio".

Done. I'll keep this in mind next time I'm referencing audio!

"Content" is somewhat short but I see why as it reflects the sources' information. I don't know if there's too much more but you can cite the book itself if it is necessary.

That's about it. Obviously the book goes into a lot of detail and discussion, but all the main points are there.

How "give the nature-loving Norwegians a hard time for racking up stacks of cash by selling fossil fuels" became "He argues that Norway's marketing of itself as an environmentally-friendly country is hypocritical given its large ecological footprint from the sale of fossil fuels."?

I guess that's where I've mixed my impression from reading the book with what was actually written about it – reworded.

On the same way, it its stated his "strongest criticism" goes to Sweden but I'm not sure "Booth's wry eye zooms in" is equal to "strongest criticism".

I have added citations to two reviews which mention that the book is most critical of Sweden.

Is the "gave the book 4 out of 5 stars" necessary when what is only cited about the other reviews are their statements? Yeah, I checked and ther others don't have a rating scales but isn't good to keep a standard?

I think that giving a simple rating is good for gauging a reviewer's overall opinion, where possible, and if the other reviews had ratings I would've included them. I don't think it looks too out of place but I don't feel too strongly either way if you think it doesn't look right.

Almost all the sources are from reputable newspapers (The Independent, The Guardian, Financial Times) or other media (BBC Radio, Literary Review). The exceptions are GB Times and Rationalist Association. WP:RSOPINION may be enough to pass both commentaries in the "Reception" section. No other source mention its release or translation? GB Times has a few hits in Wikipedia but I'm not pretty sure on its reliability.

I was able to find another reference for the first sentence but unfortunately I couldn't find any other sources to verify the details about the Scandinavian release and translation. I'm also not 100% about reliability – I suppose the claims the source is being used to support aren't particularly controversial, for what it's worth though.

--Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold for seven days. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review, Gabriel, and for all your suggestions and comments. I've left specific replies to your comments above. 97198 (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes. Despite some doubt about GB Times, I think the article is worthy of GA status. Passed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel Yuji: Many thanks! 97198 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]