Talk:The Rage Against God/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shimeru (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm going to place this on hold for now. I don't think the article is in a passing state as it stands, but it doesn't look too far off. It's certainly grown a good deal in a short time as it is.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The prose is clear, and there don't appear to be obvious spelling or grammar mistakes.

B. MoS compliance:
The article is not fully according to WP:MOS. For instance, the WP:LEAD doesn't appear to summarize the body of the article; instead, it presents information that is not otherwise discussed in the article, namely "Peter Hitchens argues in his book that his brother's verdict on religion is misguided, and that faith in God is both a safeguard against the collapse of civilisation into moral chaos and the best antidote to what he sees as the dangerous idea of earthly perfection through utopianism." The Spectator quote is also somewhat questionable -- a summary of the critical reception is certainly appropriate for the lead, but a single quote that includes a few words of puffery is less so.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Citations appear to be in order.

C. No original research:
I see no OR issues.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Coverage of the reception seems pretty good, but coverage of the book itself is a little light. I think the Synopsis section could be expanded a little, especially in areas that the critical reviews touch on.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Nothing too egregious, but there's definitely a positive slant running through the article. From the issues with the lead I mentioned above to the remark about his brother's having "expressed admiration for Lenin's achievement of de-christianising Russia" (And is there a secondary source for that claim? Or at least a direct quote? Having it outside a quote like that strikes me as treading a little close to the BLP line.) to a rather laudatory critical-reception section (with a single dissenting review), it appears to me that this article is supportive of the book and its argument, rather than neutrally reporting on it.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Both book covers are listed as CC-by-SA, noting that the copyright holder, Jprw (talk · contribs), has agreed to release it as such. Is this user in fact the individual who designed both covers? (And if so, did he retain the copyright rather than providing work for hire?) Needs some clarification.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Although I wonder whether the photos of Lenin and Trotsky really add anything to the article. Well, I suppose they don't actively detract, in any case...
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold. Thanks for your hard work so far.

Shimeru (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shimeru

Thanks to Shimeru for his excellent, fair and thorough analysis of the problems with the article. His criticisms and suggestions no doubt serve as a template for us going forward. In the next few weeks I'll try to deal with as many of the (easier) points Shimeru raises (BLP issues/neutrality). I'm afraid however that I won't be able to address the other, very important observation from Shimeru – that the lead is not fully extrapolated throughout the article and that it is too long against the synopsis. In order to solve these issues, a fuller synopsis is needed, and I would need a hard copy of the book in order to be able to write one (which at the moment I do not have). I'm coming to the UK again in July and will order one on Amazon for then. In the meantime, it looks as thought the article will fail the GA nomination, and can be submitted again perhaps in early August after all the problems above have been dealt with, unless, that is, another editor would be so kind as to have a go themselves? Anyway, it isn't a race – it seems to me that we should be aiming to get there slowly and surely, always trying to ensure quality and adhere to WP guidelines along the way. Jprw (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan. I don't want to leave it on hold on the GA nomination list for that long, so I've failed it for now. Please renominate it once you've had the opportunity to work on it. Shimeru 18:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will be renominating it -- I am confident that the failings you drew attention to can be adequately addressed. Thanks again for your suggestions and taking the trouble to do the assessment. Best, Jprw (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]