![]() | Subtle is the Lord has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 12, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Subtle is the Lord article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A fact from Subtle is the Lord appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 December 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Hi all, I am searching for a more catchy hook for the DYK above, if anyone has any ideas, please let me know. @ Wasted Time R: We discussed this book once before, do you have any ideas for improvements or the DYK? I am sure there is a lot of interesting material here, but I have not had a chance to read everything. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 01:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Amakuru: Common knowledge statements do not need citations as citations exist to allow for verification. His year of death does not need verification as it is common knowledge, is there a biography guideline I'm missing? We can add a reference to one of his obits for it, but it is reference spam, IMO. Footlessmouse ( talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Amakuru: I didn't notice this the first time, I only saw the citation needed in the lead. Why did you put a citation needed template on a statement about translating into foreign language immediately above a list of languages the book has been translated into with ISBNs and other identifiers? I will wait a while for your response before reverting, but I'm quite sure that it is unnecessary. Footlessmouse ( talk) 06:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 12:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an interesting and well-cited article on a welcome topic.
@ Chiswick Chap: Okay, I will respond to some of this, I haven't had time and was not sure what I should say, but here goes: Splitting the sections into "favorable" and "hostile" is not okay, not the least because it is flat wrong; for instance, McCrea's review was one of very few that I would consider downright hostile, but a quote from him is now included in the "favorable" section as if he left a good review, which he by no means attempted to do. Why did you change "website=" to "publisher=" for websites? That is clearly wrong (was confused and didn't realize that's what you wanted). Do you have a link to one of our 5 MOS pages that are required for GA that says overlinking cannot be done and some details on what overlinking means? (not in any of lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, or list incorporation that I see) I also missed the awards, I usually give them their own section, but I do not agree that the brief mentions and acclamations of the book should be mixed in with reviews. Reviews provide significant coverage of the book and are used for further reading, I would rather all the brief mentions be deleted than mixed in with the reviews (it doesn't necessarily need its own section, but it needs its own paragraph and must be stated as such). Also, you had no right under GA review procedures to demand I remove an external link from the page (and remove it yourself when I objected), that is EXPLICITLY beyond the scope of a GA review (literally included in the examples of what GA criteria are not). As far as your other comments are concerned, reliable sources were not concerned with what Penrose had to say about the book nor with any of the pictures at the beginning, ergo per GA criteria none of that is required. Also, you are now a major contributor to the article, so please excuse yourself from the review and ask for a second opinion. I have not and probably won't straight undo any of your changes, I just feel obligated to point out you are going way over beyond what you are entitled to demand as far as a simple GA review is concerned, so that you may keep that in mind next time. We do need to fix the layout now, though, as the current version is unacceptable. Also, finally, absolutely no one ever wants to hear you say that "You've been told some odd stuff" as a rebuff to an explanation; if something I said was wrong, please provide a link to the proper policy or guideline, saying I've been told odd stuff is slightly offensive and certainly unhelpful. Footlessmouse ( talk) 10:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Subtle is the Lord has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 12, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Subtle is the Lord article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A fact from Subtle is the Lord appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 December 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Hi all, I am searching for a more catchy hook for the DYK above, if anyone has any ideas, please let me know. @ Wasted Time R: We discussed this book once before, do you have any ideas for improvements or the DYK? I am sure there is a lot of interesting material here, but I have not had a chance to read everything. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 01:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Amakuru: Common knowledge statements do not need citations as citations exist to allow for verification. His year of death does not need verification as it is common knowledge, is there a biography guideline I'm missing? We can add a reference to one of his obits for it, but it is reference spam, IMO. Footlessmouse ( talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Amakuru: I didn't notice this the first time, I only saw the citation needed in the lead. Why did you put a citation needed template on a statement about translating into foreign language immediately above a list of languages the book has been translated into with ISBNs and other identifiers? I will wait a while for your response before reverting, but I'm quite sure that it is unnecessary. Footlessmouse ( talk) 06:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 12:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an interesting and well-cited article on a welcome topic.
@ Chiswick Chap: Okay, I will respond to some of this, I haven't had time and was not sure what I should say, but here goes: Splitting the sections into "favorable" and "hostile" is not okay, not the least because it is flat wrong; for instance, McCrea's review was one of very few that I would consider downright hostile, but a quote from him is now included in the "favorable" section as if he left a good review, which he by no means attempted to do. Why did you change "website=" to "publisher=" for websites? That is clearly wrong (was confused and didn't realize that's what you wanted). Do you have a link to one of our 5 MOS pages that are required for GA that says overlinking cannot be done and some details on what overlinking means? (not in any of lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, or list incorporation that I see) I also missed the awards, I usually give them their own section, but I do not agree that the brief mentions and acclamations of the book should be mixed in with reviews. Reviews provide significant coverage of the book and are used for further reading, I would rather all the brief mentions be deleted than mixed in with the reviews (it doesn't necessarily need its own section, but it needs its own paragraph and must be stated as such). Also, you had no right under GA review procedures to demand I remove an external link from the page (and remove it yourself when I objected), that is EXPLICITLY beyond the scope of a GA review (literally included in the examples of what GA criteria are not). As far as your other comments are concerned, reliable sources were not concerned with what Penrose had to say about the book nor with any of the pictures at the beginning, ergo per GA criteria none of that is required. Also, you are now a major contributor to the article, so please excuse yourself from the review and ask for a second opinion. I have not and probably won't straight undo any of your changes, I just feel obligated to point out you are going way over beyond what you are entitled to demand as far as a simple GA review is concerned, so that you may keep that in mind next time. We do need to fix the layout now, though, as the current version is unacceptable. Also, finally, absolutely no one ever wants to hear you say that "You've been told some odd stuff" as a rebuff to an explanation; if something I said was wrong, please provide a link to the proper policy or guideline, saying I've been told odd stuff is slightly offensive and certainly unhelpful. Footlessmouse ( talk) 10:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)