Wikipedia:Peer review/A Journey/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This autobiographical account of Tony Blair's years in Downing Street was peer reviewed about 18 months ago not long after I created the article. Along with another editor I expanded it over the coming months and it was promoted to GA in January 2011. A shot at FAC the following month was unsuccessful, though I believe the issues raised in that discussion were largely addressed at the time. I didn't personally take part in that stage of the process, but would like to see it promoted. So, I'm interested to know what else might need doing to it before it goes up for a second nomination.
I should add here that because I use a screen magnifier to edit issues with images, graphics, tables, etc, are very difficult for me to address so any assistance with these would be very helpful.
Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have printed out a hard copy and will make comments later. Re the images: I can say that if they're going to be so narrow the cutlines need not to be so long. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, now that I've done this: The article's number one problem is that it's too wordy. Part of this is necessary information conveyed with more words than necessary; the rest is information we don't need (It's been almost two years since publication; I submit that many of the exact dates are not necessary. If they're not really relevant now, they are even less likely to be relevant in, say, 2022). I found more examples than I care to list here, so I'll just offer a few egregious ones. If you'd like me to do a full edit for brevity, just ask. It could definitely stand to be done.
- First sentence, second graf of intro: "The book covers much-debated issues such as Blair's latterly strained relationship with Brown after allegedly making a pact with him in 1994 to step down as Prime Minister much earlier, as well as his controversial decision to take Britain into war with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the aftermath of which, Blair says in the book, was a "nightmare"." Run-on sentence. I think it could be split up somehow.
- History, second graf: As tragic as they were, I don't think it adds to our understanding of the book to say exactly how the sons of the men quoted died.
- Synopsis, first graf: "Labour's 2010 election defeat is blamed on Brown ..." is a textbook example of using the passive voice where the active would be a lot better.
- Fourth graf:
- "Blair claims in the publication ..." Perhaps it's one of those UK usage things, but is "publication" really a good synonym for "book" here? If it's a UK thing, then stet, but otherwise reconsider (And do we need to constantly remind people that Blair says this in the book? The article is about the book; I don't think the reader would presume otherwise.
- "... that he had a premonition that his predecessor, John Smith, would die less than a month before he did so in 1994." This could be read to suggest that Blair had a premonition that he would die as well as Smith.
- "Blair goes on to say that he knew that he would be the one to succeed Smith as Labour leader..." Somehow, I think that the action in that sentence can be expressed with a lot fewer verbs and less relative pronouns (maybe none).
- Reviews, first graf: We need to specify that the New York Times review was published in The New York Times Book Review, as the daily paper also publishes reviews, sometimes of books also reviewed in the Book Review. I think naming Fareed Zakaria as the reviewer here would be a good idea.
- Generally, while I'm not bothered as I might be with another book by the extent of reviews quoted and the space devoted to them, as the author of the book being reviewed was a recent longtime leader of a national government, I do think we can separate American reviews from British ones (It might also be interesting to see if The Washington Post had someone notable review it, and even if they didn't, what they said).
- Other reaction, first graf: "It is generally accepted that a Prime Minister does not discuss details of conversations he has with the Queen." Just queens? It's OK for a PM to dicuss details of conversations with kings? Should we just say "sovereigns"?
- In the last graf of that section, there is no reason to repeat the entire allegedly plagiarized quote. Simply saying there's a similar line of dialogue in the movie would suffice. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers for those. I have them pretty much covered now. I'll read through it again and make some more changes over the next few days. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, now that I've done this: The article's number one problem is that it's too wordy. Part of this is necessary information conveyed with more words than necessary; the rest is information we don't need (It's been almost two years since publication; I submit that many of the exact dates are not necessary. If they're not really relevant now, they are even less likely to be relevant in, say, 2022). I found more examples than I care to list here, so I'll just offer a few egregious ones. If you'd like me to do a full edit for brevity, just ask. It could definitely stand to be done.
Comments
- " the Labour Party in 1994 and transformed the party into "New Labour"; the party held power..." party party party... (sounds good!), just a bit repetitive.
- "the Royal British Legion" is actually "The Royal British Legion". Check main body for this.
- "to step down much " I would personally add "as Prime Minister" between "down" and "much" just for 100% clarity on the "him"'s and from where Blair would be stepping...
- "Along with media reaction" should that be "the" media reaction?
- "The book was also released as an audiobook" could be me being ultra picky but you not keen on the repeat of "book", perhaps "the work was released as..."?
- Norman Smith (journalist) has his own (albeit limited) article.
- I know Waterstones had an apostrophe then, but does it still need one in this article?
- "weeks after publication in July" not sure "in July" is needed (seems unnecessarily precise, like it's important it was July), but maybe "earlier that year".
- I prefer to see "number" rather than "No." in prose.
- "...Blair during a book signing in Dublin, Ireland. During the demonstration..." perhaps "Blair at a book signing... During..."
- "given fears that the British National Party and other hostile groups were " strictly, the BNP is a valid British political party, is this implied descrpition of them as "hostile" Tony's words or yours?
- Not keen on the squashed text between Bush and Diana.
- Consider linking "toper" (I had to look it up!).
- The Financial Times is just the Financial Times. Similar for the Sunday Express. Check refs too.
- The "and" in the memoir should be an ampersand.
- Andre has no accent these days.
- Should "Other reaction" be "Other reactions"?
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I'll do some work on it a bit later on and make some changes. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- ok, think I have those covered now. Also tweaked the captions as mentioned above. Incidentally, I notice "the book" is mentioned several times throughout the text and it sounds awkward in places, so I might try to substitute other phrases such as "A Journey", "Blair's memoirs", and so on, just to make it flow better. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)