Jump to content

Talk:Why We Want You to Be Rich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeWhy We Want You to Be Rich was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 10, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 16, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Publishers Weekly called Why We Want You to Be Rich authors Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki "a strangely winning combination"?

Satisfies WP:NBOOK per Criteria (1)

[edit]

Satisfies WP:NBOOK as number one The New York Times Best Seller list and book reviews in Publishers Weekly and Kiplinger's Personal Finance. Sagecandor (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Page move?

[edit]
Resolved

Should this page be moved to Why We Want You to Be Rich, to comply with WP's manual of style? Something to consider during GA nomination. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer:Done. Sagecandor (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Why We Want You to Be Rich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 15:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The summary section could use some copyediting to eliminate some repetitive sentence structure.
  • employment opportunities are not formed from the government: odd phrasing; perhaps "created by"?
  • The second paragraph is quite unclear. What does "a future social class in the United States with only two tiers" mean? How many tiers do we have now? Why is this an opportunity for investors?
  • such a system will be prosperous for wealthy individuals: needs a copyedit; presumably this should say the individuals will be prosperous, not the system, and in any case wealthy individuals are prosperous by definition.
  • Graphs are used to illustrate their main points: vague; cut or be specific.
  • Not needed for GA, but you're missing some ISBNs in the footnotes -- see footnotes 19, 29, 31 and 39.
  • Are there no reviews from other major publications? And does the balance of the reception section accurately reflect the reviews? It seems tilted to the negative.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor, are you planning to work on this? If not I'll fail the article in another week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've addressed the specific points in green. Clarifying the second paragraph will be tricky - I'll have to see if the book is available at my library. I'll postpone the other corrections until I know how much I can do with this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no hurry. Ping me when you're ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: This book isn't easily available, so I won't be able to accurately clarify the second paragraph. Is that a deal breaker for this one? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, I'm afraid. It sounds like it's one of the main points made by the book, and I am quite unsure what it means. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it seems like a central point with the way Sagecandor summarized it. I assume it's a reference to wealth inequality and the elimination of the middle class, and I wouldn't be surprised if the authors were vague so readers would focus on what they said was coming instead of second-guessing what they said currently exists. Without reading the book myself, I'm not comfortable writing the article that way, though. I've requested help from WikiProject Donald Trump, hopefully someone there will be willing and able to assist. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, but I don't think it can be promoted that way. I'm going to fail it, and if the WikiProject can clean it up, it can be renominated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Why_We_Want_You_to_Be_Rich&oldid=1241043633"