The Clean Tech Revolution 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have placed the review on hold. The article explains enough about the content of the book, but is there anymore info about the book in general? When was the book released? In which countries was it released? How many copies have sold? Why did the authors write the book? Did it recieve any positive feedback? Epbr123 ( talk) 00:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
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.
1. Prose style and MOS compliance
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 considered as original research in character, since no outside authority has decided on the importance of particular extracts, or copyright violation in scale.
The lead section is also inadqueate.
2. Sources and verification
I've already deleted links to amazon.com which were included, these are neither a reliable source or appropiate for wikipedia.
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.
Section 2 ("Authors") appears to be copied verbatim from their own website, I cannot check this since the link is not working.
The second last paragraph in that section appears to be OR, its placement is unclear, perhaps the wikipedia editor's own reading?
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.
3. Images Both images are fine for inclusion, the lead image is non-free but a fair use of the cover of a copyrighted work.
4. Misc
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.
Editors wishing to improve the article might find useful models in The Book of est, though about a fictional work, its NPOV description of the book's contents and contextualisation are good. Also consider how articles such as Drapier's Letters 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, -- Ktlynch ( talk) 12:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The Clean Tech Revolution 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have placed the review on hold. The article explains enough about the content of the book, but is there anymore info about the book in general? When was the book released? In which countries was it released? How many copies have sold? Why did the authors write the book? Did it recieve any positive feedback? Epbr123 ( talk) 00:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
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.
1. Prose style and MOS compliance
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 considered as original research in character, since no outside authority has decided on the importance of particular extracts, or copyright violation in scale.
The lead section is also inadqueate.
2. Sources and verification
I've already deleted links to amazon.com which were included, these are neither a reliable source or appropiate for wikipedia.
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.
Section 2 ("Authors") appears to be copied verbatim from their own website, I cannot check this since the link is not working.
The second last paragraph in that section appears to be OR, its placement is unclear, perhaps the wikipedia editor's own reading?
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.
3. Images Both images are fine for inclusion, the lead image is non-free but a fair use of the cover of a copyrighted work.
4. Misc
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.
Editors wishing to improve the article might find useful models in The Book of est, though about a fictional work, its NPOV description of the book's contents and contextualisation are good. Also consider how articles such as Drapier's Letters 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, -- Ktlynch ( talk) 12:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)