228:
editor's reading of the book, plus an awkward reception section. The whole thing needs to be re-worked with reference to 3rd party published sources, i.e. reviewers' descriptions of content, and interesting information on the book's genesis and publication, where that exists. I reccomend finding a new batch of sources (this is sure to be more written after the second edition), re-writing the article and re-nomination at GAN. I can make that critique without any intended to you, the book or its authors. Best, --
250:
You don't sound frightening, but you have been super-critical of this article. I have found much of your criticism to be over the top and misplaced. I felt that your tagging of the article for rewrite after presenting such a negative GAR commentary was over the top. There was no need for it. I found
227:
Hi, I'm sorry if I sound very frightening, but the swathes of quotation really did shock me. Your edits are in the right direction and improve the article (Links cleaned up, deletion of one section of quotes) but the fundamental problem still remains: the article consists of a couple of sections an
196:
Goodness me, you clearly don't like this article. Yet I don't see a major problem which can't be overcome through normal editing. Most of the external links could be removed. The Quotes section could be moved to
Wikiquote. A few more third party references could be added. A good copyedit would help.
287:
Some of what you are saying now is quite unclear. I'm not sure what you mean by this: "the article consists of a couple of sections an editor's reading of the book". You mention the "awkward reception section" yet you have not explained what is awkward about it. Why not go in yourself and make some
180:
blend description and criticism of the work. Please ask me if there are further questions or anything in this review is not clear. Again I regret having to criticise an article which is well formatted and worked over, however it is little more than a publisher's own blurb for the book. Best wishes,
122:
Throughout the article makes excessive use of quotation from the subject itself such that it becomes nothing more than a reproduction. There is nothing new or useful: no context, no expert review or description. This is the entire content of sections 3 ("Six C's") and 4 ("Quotes"). It could be
318:
I have included all the reliable third party sources that I have found. If you want still more sources you need to spell out exactly which sources you are referring to. And hopefully incorporate these yourself. There is a limit to what I can do myself and help from another editor would be
254:
about the article failing "to understand the proper form for an article on non-fiction books and could do with some expert attention in that regard" was over the top and uncalled for. Your statement that the article is "little more than a publisher's own blurb for the book" is simply
332:
In short I would say: This article is not perfect, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it that can't be overcome through normal editing. Please stop being super-critical and make some editing contributions yourself to improve it. I am inviting you to work with me on this.
112:
It is with regret that I nominate this article for delisting from GA class, the author has clearly worked hard on it with the best intentions. Unfortunately, it does not stand even a summary comparison with the criteria for this class and other articles on non-fiction books.
142:
The main source cited is the free excerpt from the subject published on its website. The reception section is the only one that cites other sources, there for the opinion of reviewers.
357:
I've looked at some FA non-fiction book articles and can see that these have a more in-depth coverage than is presented here. But when I look at GA non-fiction book articles,
95:
91:
76:
167:
The see also and external links sections appear to be a miscellany of related topics and newspaper articles the revelvance of which is not established.
68:
176:, though about a fictional work, its NPOV description of the book's contents and contextualisation are good. Also consider how articles such as
393:
If you are still considering delisting this article, I would ask that you first get a second opinion from an experienced GA reviewer like
151:
Reference 3 is a link to the book's author's own profile on a website for which he writes, representing a possible conflict of interest.
301:
You're saying that "the whole thing needs to be re-worked with reference to 3rd party published sources" but that has already been done,
268:
I'm not sure why the "swathes of quotation" shocked you so much. Lots of non-fiction book GAs use extensive quotations. See for example
148:
The second last paragraph in that section appears to be OR, its placement is unclear, perhaps the wikipedia editor's own reading?
380:
Ktlynch, you've not been editing to improve the article, and you've not come forward with more suitable sources, what's going on?
127:
in character, since no outside authority has decided on the importance of particular extracts, or copyright violation in scale.
139:
I've already deleted links to amazon.com which were included, these are neither a reliable source or appropiate for wikipedia.
145:
Section 2 ("Authors") appears to be copied verbatim from their own website, I cannot check this since the link is not working.
84:
17:
55:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
420:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
39:
270:
158:
Both images are fine for inclusion, the lead image is non-free but a fair use of the cover of a copyrighted work.
363:
61:
35:
305:. More third party sources were located and added, some long quotes removed, copyediting undertaken, etc.
233:
186:
229:
182:
177:
402:
338:
218:
202:
124:
406:
342:
237:
222:
206:
190:
43:
172:
394:
398:
334:
214:
198:
213:
Have now rewritten this article, but feel free to make further improvements.
361:
seems to be on a par with most of them. Some GA book articles, such as
170:
Editors wishing to improve the article might find useful models in
367:, are shorter and have less third party coverage than this one.
302:
252:
103:
72:
8:
288:changes that would overcome any awkwardness?
34:Twelve year-old GAR; procedural keep.
130:The lead section is also inadqueate.
7:
51:The following discussion is closed.
251:what you said at Wikiproject Books
24:
416:The discussion above is closed.
118:Prose style and MOS compliance
18:Talk:The Clean Tech Revolution
1:
44:12:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
407:17:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
343:21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
238:17:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
223:01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
207:21:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
191:12:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
271:A Short History of Progress
435:
364:Atlas of Australian Birds
359:The Clean Tech Revolution
418:Please do not modify it.
135:Sources and verification
53:Please do not modify it.
36:~~ AirshipJungleman29
54:
178:Drapier's Letters
125:original research
52:
426:
108:
99:
80:
434:
433:
429:
428:
427:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
173:The Book of est
89:
66:
60:
57:
48:
47:
46:
29:
27:GA Reassessment
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
432:
430:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
395:User:Wizardman
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
243:
242:
241:
240:
210:
209:
123:considered as
109:
58:
49:
33:
32:
31:
30:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
431:
419:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
366:
365:
360:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
344:
340:
336:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
304:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
273:
272:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
253:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
239:
235:
231:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
208:
204:
200:
195:
194:
193:
192:
188:
184:
179:
175:
174:
168:
165:
164:
159:
157:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
136:
131:
128:
126:
120:
119:
114:
110:
107:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
87:
83:
78:
74:
70:
65:
64:
56:
45:
41:
37:
26:
19:
417:
362:
358:
319:appreciated.
269:
171:
169:
166:
162:
160:
155:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
132:
129:
121:
117:
115:
111:
104:
100:
86:Article talk
85:
81:
62:
59:
50:
73:visual edit
399:Johnfos
335:Johnfos
255:untrue.
230:Ktlynch
215:Johnfos
199:Johnfos
183:Ktlynch
96:history
77:history
63:Article
156:Images
105:Watch
16:<
403:talk
339:talk
303:here
234:talk
219:talk
203:talk
187:talk
163:Misc
92:edit
69:edit
40:talk
161:4.
154:3.
133:2.
116:1.
405:)
397:.
341:)
236:)
221:)
205:)
189:)
181:--
94:|
75:|
71:|
42:)
401:(
337:(
274:.
232:(
217:(
201:(
185:(
101:·
98:)
90:(
82:·
79:)
67:(
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.