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 |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: TompaDompa ( talk · contribs) 06:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I will review this. As an initial observation, I would suggest adding a suitable image of footwear to the WP:LEAD. TompaDompa ( talk) 06:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
theory that people in poverty have to buy cheap and subpar products that need to be replaced repeatedly, proving more expensive in the long run than more expensive items– this is not really covered in the body of the article, unless you count the quote from Men at Arms itself, in which case this is WP:INTERPRETATION of a primary source.
cynical but likable– this is Rhianna Pratchett's description. I would say attribute it, but it would be better to just remove it.
In the novel 1993 novel Men at Arms– duplicate "novel".
the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairnesscomes from Men at Arms itself.
In the book "Fashion in the Fairy Tale Tradition", Rebecca-Anne C. Do Rozario argued "shoes and economic autonomy are inexorably linked" in fairy tales, citing the Boots' theory as "particularly relevant" and "an insightful metaphor for inequality".– this quotes the source so selectively as to be kind of misleading. The source says "an insightful metaphor for inequality articulated through footwear" and "particularly relevant to the concerns of this chapter". The chapter is called "Shoes, the Sole of Fairy Tale: Stepping Between Desire and Damnation", and the author is primarily making a point about the role of shoes in fairy tales rather than about Pratchett, Discworld, Men at Arms, Vimes, or the boots theory. I think this kind of misses the mark, since the pertinent point for this section of the article is that the author identifies footwear being used in an economic context as one of many motifs that Pratchett's work shares with fairy tales.
Since the publication of Men at Arms, others have also made reference to the theory.– "reference" is very much the key word here. The instances listed here aren't really examples of the same mechanism.
ex-staff from the ONS– a bit of an odd phrasing. I would use a construction with "former".
quoted Pratchett to say "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness"– it should really be noted that this is also from Men at Arms.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Ping
TheTranarchist. I'm of a mind to close this nomination as unsuccessful, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond before I make up my mind. At its core, I don't think the approach taken here really works. As noted above, the article calls this an economic theory and treats it as such, but that doesn't seem entirely justified to me. Do academic sources on economics do that? If so, they should form the basis for the article. The "Examples" section is also really more of a collection of references to the boots theory, as noted above. Obviously, that's a problem when it's the majority of the article.
Some of this material could and should be covered at Men at Arms and/or cost of poverty, but it's not entirely clear to me that this is viable as a stand-alone article. If it is, that would probably be as an article on the cultural phenomenon of using this example to explain this type of poverty premium to laypeople, rather than as an article on the underlying economic idea (which also means that it doesn't really belong in the "Economics and business" section of WP:GAN).
I'm rather a fan of Discworld and not terribly impressed with Wikipedia's overall coverage of the series, so I was pleasantly surprised when I saw this nominated and was looking forward to reading and reviewing it (and hopefully promoting it to WP:Good article status). Unfortunately, I think this article needs a more extensive rewrite than is really within the scope of the WP:GAN process. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Price changes in the cheapest versions of 30 staple foods between September 2021 and 2022 in the U.K. according to ONS reportif you think that version better covers it?
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
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 |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: TompaDompa ( talk · contribs) 06:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I will review this. As an initial observation, I would suggest adding a suitable image of footwear to the WP:LEAD. TompaDompa ( talk) 06:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
theory that people in poverty have to buy cheap and subpar products that need to be replaced repeatedly, proving more expensive in the long run than more expensive items– this is not really covered in the body of the article, unless you count the quote from Men at Arms itself, in which case this is WP:INTERPRETATION of a primary source.
cynical but likable– this is Rhianna Pratchett's description. I would say attribute it, but it would be better to just remove it.
In the novel 1993 novel Men at Arms– duplicate "novel".
the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairnesscomes from Men at Arms itself.
In the book "Fashion in the Fairy Tale Tradition", Rebecca-Anne C. Do Rozario argued "shoes and economic autonomy are inexorably linked" in fairy tales, citing the Boots' theory as "particularly relevant" and "an insightful metaphor for inequality".– this quotes the source so selectively as to be kind of misleading. The source says "an insightful metaphor for inequality articulated through footwear" and "particularly relevant to the concerns of this chapter". The chapter is called "Shoes, the Sole of Fairy Tale: Stepping Between Desire and Damnation", and the author is primarily making a point about the role of shoes in fairy tales rather than about Pratchett, Discworld, Men at Arms, Vimes, or the boots theory. I think this kind of misses the mark, since the pertinent point for this section of the article is that the author identifies footwear being used in an economic context as one of many motifs that Pratchett's work shares with fairy tales.
Since the publication of Men at Arms, others have also made reference to the theory.– "reference" is very much the key word here. The instances listed here aren't really examples of the same mechanism.
ex-staff from the ONS– a bit of an odd phrasing. I would use a construction with "former".
quoted Pratchett to say "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness"– it should really be noted that this is also from Men at Arms.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Ping
TheTranarchist. I'm of a mind to close this nomination as unsuccessful, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond before I make up my mind. At its core, I don't think the approach taken here really works. As noted above, the article calls this an economic theory and treats it as such, but that doesn't seem entirely justified to me. Do academic sources on economics do that? If so, they should form the basis for the article. The "Examples" section is also really more of a collection of references to the boots theory, as noted above. Obviously, that's a problem when it's the majority of the article.
Some of this material could and should be covered at Men at Arms and/or cost of poverty, but it's not entirely clear to me that this is viable as a stand-alone article. If it is, that would probably be as an article on the cultural phenomenon of using this example to explain this type of poverty premium to laypeople, rather than as an article on the underlying economic idea (which also means that it doesn't really belong in the "Economics and business" section of WP:GAN).
I'm rather a fan of Discworld and not terribly impressed with Wikipedia's overall coverage of the series, so I was pleasantly surprised when I saw this nominated and was looking forward to reading and reviewing it (and hopefully promoting it to WP:Good article status). Unfortunately, I think this article needs a more extensive rewrite than is really within the scope of the WP:GAN process. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Price changes in the cheapest versions of 30 staple foods between September 2021 and 2022 in the U.K. according to ONS reportif you think that version better covers it?
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.