Talk:The Courage to Be Free/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: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 20:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a review posted for this one shortly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

ElijahPepe, I've written up a review. The main issue here is that the article is limited in scope and needs more information. It also needs some reorganization so that the information flows more smoothly. I've elaborated on these below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I finished revising the article. Several points:

• The contents summary section is intentionally written to overview brief sentences before going deeper into some elements.
• I didn't view the Constitution sentence as meaning what you wrote in your review.
• There's virtually no coverage I could find of conservative reactions to the book without using primary sources from Twitter or suggesting that The Telegraph has a slant towards DeSantis and thus gave him a favorable review—which pushes a narrative that hasn't been proposed in any secondary source.
• The lede is the background in this situation. This article can't be expected to go into detail about DeSantis' life without using sourcing that isn't present in coverage about this book. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

ElijahPepe, I've added some more notes below in response to your changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Should be good now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

• The lead should only include material that is found in the body. Otherwise it's just unsourced and unsorted content. Move Szalai's comments from the lead down to the reception section with the rest of her review. Instead, the lead should summarize the overall reception.
• outlines DeSantis' vision for the United States – Something like "outlines DeSantis' political philosophy" might be more formal and less glorifying than "vision for the United States".
• I know you're quoting DeSantis, but "woke" and "woke agenda" look like they're in MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Explain that they are Desantis's descriptors.
• I suggest sorting "contents summary" by topic. The first paragraph jumps back and forth, but then the second paragraph stays focused on COVID.
• Coverage of DeSantis's self-contradiction might be more appropriate under an "analysis" or "political philosophy" section. The summary should be limited to what's in the book rather than a breakdown of how his arguments have changed over time.
• using the Constitution to rebuke the presidency of Barack Obama – the way this is worded makes it seem like the Constitution naturally "rebukes" Obama and that DeSantis was successful in his argument.
• Maybe information about sales can be moved up to the "publication" section. That way the "reception" section can stay focused specifically on how it was received.

Verifiable with no original research

All sources appear to be reliable. They're all newspapers, but a quick search doesn't turn up any mentions in academic sources (which is to be expected given its recency and the relatively low profile of most political memoirs after their release).

Spot checks:

• Parini – Debatable whether it supports and the elite, but otherwise good.
• Contoro & Maher – Good.
• Mahoney & Wilsom – Good.
• Lizza, Bade & Daniels – Good.

Broad in its coverage

• A "background" section would be really helpful here. Assume that the reader only has a vague idea of who DeSantis is. A paragraph going over his political career, his first book, and rumors of presidential aspirations would provide more context before the summary. Some of this is in the "composition and publication" section and can just be moved up, but it would also require a little more content.
• It could use more information about what's actually in the book. Based on the summary, I'd say the book is mostly about COVID and wokeness while briefly touching on federal reform and foreign policy. Does that give me an accurate overview of the book's contents? For one, the lead says that Disney was a significant aspect, but the summary doesn't mention it once.
• Attempts to get the book banned using DeSantis's own initiatives are almost certainly worth mentioning with the release.
• After reading the article, I still don't really know how conservatives feel about the book. Was it generally well received by its target audience? Did the Trump faction of the Republican Party have thoughts on it? I know information is probably limited, but any addition would be helpful.

Neutral

The article is neither laudatory nor critical. No ideas are given undue weight.

Stable

Surprisingly no history of disputes.

Illustrated

• The main image has a valid non-free use rationale.
• The main image's caption is just "cover". It's probably safe to remove this unless there's more to be said about it.
• The image of Trump doesn't seem terribly relevant, especially considering the caption is talking about where he doesn't appear in the book.
• If you want a second image besides the infobox image, I suggest trying to find one of DeSantis touring or demonstrating one of the ideas in the book (e.g. a photo of DeSantis during the COVID pandemic or engaged in his feud with Disney).

Second read

• self-described woke would mean that the corporations and other opponents of DeSantis chose that name for themselves (hence self-described), not that it's ascribed to them by DeSantis.
• There's inconsistency between DeSantis' and DeSantis's. Either is fine, but it should be the same throughout the article.
• "Mad Libs" should not be in the lead. Those are the specific words of a critic, not a general descriptor of the critical reception.
• Since the sales info has been moved, "sales and reception" can just be "reception" or "critical reception".

I also found a few aspects that have not been covered by the article. A GA doesn't have to be comprehensive, but it does need to reasonably address each major aspect:

• The cited sources talk about his political career in some measure, and in many cases they directly contrast the ideas in his book with his actions in office. The article assumes to some extent that the reader is familiar with the policies and controversies of the DeSantis governorship.
• The cited sources say the book covers biographical material about his early life. I still get the impression that "contents summary" doesn't give an accurate view of what the book is about.
• Mahoney & Wilson mention criticisms of the GOP in the book, including that they "governed as corporatists" and criticism of interventionist policies.

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.