Talk:The Good News Club: The Christian Right's Stealth Assault on America's Children

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Good News Club: The Christian Right's Stealth Assault on America's Children article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Good News Club: The Christian Right's Stealth Assault on America's Children has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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: July 19, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New article curation / review

Thanks for building this article. At this stage the primary review question is whether or not the topic meets wp:notability to be a separate article. I believe that the answer is yes and am marking / passing this as reviewed. I do think it has a pretty severe NPOV and sourcing problem. An article should contain what secondary sources have said about the topic. The bulk of this article uses the book itself as a source and is basically making the case for the book author's viewpoint via the Wiki editor extracting and presenting the book author's arguments. Also there are also sources which made blistering dissections of the book and what did and didn't go into its production and none of them are referenced in the article. These notes aside, thanks for creating this article and all of the work that you've put into doing so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source without editorial standards

Here is the source without editorial standards. He is a freelance writer but I don't think he has enough credentials himself to include him. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berkowitz, Bill (2012-01-31). "'Cookies With Christianity: After School, Public Education May Be Parochial'". HuffPost. Retrieved 2023-01-07.

GA Review

Passed. 123Writer ^talk 14:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Good News Club: The Christian Right's Stealth Assault on America's Children/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 02:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first GA review so if I get anything wrong, tell me.

Lead

Lead needs to be broken into two paragraphs, one for the info about the book, the other about the reception.

Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Author and background

Needs to be broken up into two, a separate paragraph for the author and the background.

- Changed. Let me know if this is OK. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When a GNC formed at the public elementary school her daughter attended, she investigated the club, which led to the beginning of the book.

Awkward sounding in my opinion. The commas make the sentence "jutter."

- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...in the alternative newspaper Santa Barbara Independent...

Because the Santa Barb. article states it's an alternative newspaper, it's unnecessary and/or perhaps even irrelevant to describe it as such here.

- Can you explain more? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Barbara Independent already states it is an alternative newspaper, meaning repeating that fact is likely unnecessary. However, it's a minor issue, so I'll pass the article and leave it up to you. 123Writer ^talk 14:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

...between the ages of four to fourteen in elementary schools...

The wikilink to 4/14 could be placed around "four to fourteen" part, removing the need for the parentheses.

- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph break between "...about public education." and "The book consists..."

- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...worry that their children are being proselytized, ...

Should be "proselytized to" as it's a passive action.

- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...Manhattan in New York City...

Probably can do without the New York City part.

- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...their religion, Christianity...

Remove "their religion,".

- Stewart focuses on peer-to-peer evangelism through which students can persuade other students to adopt their religion. is separate from the next part, "Christianity in high school sports, and organizations such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes." I've added a comma for clarification. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The final paragraph confused me. Does the author want to defund ALL public schools or only public schools that engage in evangelism? Also the quote "one of the largest and most successful collective efforts in [American] history" needs clarification: effort to do what?

- Clarified the first part. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Here's an additional review you may use.

- That is Trotter's review, no? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it was a different link. 123Writer ^talk 14:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This part needs to be organized better in my opinion. You should more clearly divide the reviews within sections, perhaps when the reviews talk positively or negatively about the work, or about the author's style.

Some review sources lack notability, for example The Humanist as it says in its article is only read by around 3k people. Journal of Education and Christian Belief also seems spotty in terms of notability. The reviewers are also just called by their names without credentials; why is Jeff Trotter's opinion so important?

- I think The Humanist is OK, those statistics were from the late 1990s anyway and it's a trade publication in a sense that deals specifically with these issues. According to Similarweb it's getting 51.7k website visits per month. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added Trotter's credentials. Some reviewers already had credentials, such as John E. Tropman of the University of Michigan's School of Social Work. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. 123Writer ^talk 14:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minutiae

The caption on the image should not use a full-stop. Steward in references should be wikilinked at least once.

- Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Linked Stewart. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I hope you find this review not overly harsh. Please feel free to ask me to clarify a few things if need be, I'm always happy to help.

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.

Publishing date?

OCLC says first edition came out in 2011, but this could be a typo? Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: My edition, which says it's a "first edition", says 2012. Amazon.com has it as January 24, 2012. I'm not sure where Google sources their date from but it also says January 24, 2012 for the hardcover. The publisher doesn't specify the date but does list the year as 2012. I think the 2011 isn't right. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think it was a typo. Appreciate the response. Viriditas (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]