→GA/FA status: some suggestions |
|||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
I'm attempting to enlist the help of other editors to get this article up to good or even featured status. While workling on ''[[The Real Global Warming Disaster]]'' another editor suggested [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article this] which I suggest we use as our template/guide. [[User:Jprw|Jprw]] ([[User talk:Jprw|talk]]) 12:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
I'm attempting to enlist the help of other editors to get this article up to good or even featured status. While workling on ''[[The Real Global Warming Disaster]]'' another editor suggested [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article this] which I suggest we use as our template/guide. [[User:Jprw|Jprw]] ([[User talk:Jprw|talk]]) 12:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I think this article is coming along well. In addition to the helpful tips on the page you link to, I suggest: |
|||
:*Formatting the references correctly using the templates such as CiteNews or CiteBook. |
|||
:*Make sure that all information in the intro is also mentioned in the main body text. If necessary, that may mean shortening the intro or expanding the body. |
|||
:*Add a background section, if enough information is available. Currently, background information appears to be included in the intro, so that probably shold be separated out into its own Background section. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 07:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Reviews== |
==Reviews== |
Revision as of 07:50, 4 April 2010
Deletion?
I am hardly trying to drum up sales! I'm an anti-theist, and I happen to profoundly disagree with Peter Hitchens about... pretty much everything. Neural (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- I need to log off now. I was preparing to build up this page with a lot more detail, but now I don't know whether it is worth potentially wasting my time. I don't see the justification in this trigger-happy approach to slapping deletion tags onto any new pages that appear. Hitchens, like him or not, is a well-known conservative columnist/writer. I am prepared to argue that this new book is noteworthy enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Neural (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not list every book that is published: the standard is explained at WP:Notability (books), and a newly-published book may have difficulty meeting it. Can you show that this one "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", or otherwise meets WP:BK#Criteria? JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The Title
My thanks to those who have worked on this ( sceptical editors might note that it has already attracted its first review, by Christopher Howse in the Daily Telegraph -'Taking the God out of Good', Saturday 20th March, p.29, and a mention by the columnist Mary Kenny in the 19th March edition of the 'Catholic Herald', as well as numerous comments on the web. And it was only published a week ago). But the title used here is not in fact the title of the book, in Britain or the USA. In Britain it has no subtitle at all and is 'The Rage Against God' (the US Edition will have the subtitle 'How atheism led me to faith'). I think it would be simpler, and easier for readers to find, if the basic title 'The Rage Against God', common to both editions, were used. I don't know how to amend this, and think it would be better if someone else did. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting about the title -- I wonder why no-one noticed? Have just checked on Amazon UK however and it is indeed simply The Rage Against God. Jprw (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
further reviews and mentions
The book is reviewed in the April issue of Standpoint Magazine by Michael Nazir Ali [1]
And referred to by Simon Hoggart in his Guardian column of 27th March [2]
Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added the Standpoint ref but Hoggart's mention isn't substantial enough. I wonder if Michael Gove will be reviewing the book? I seem to remember reading somewhere that he couldn't wait to read it. I suppose it's still early days. At the moment the reception section needs some critical refs for balance. Jprw (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Michael Gove seems to be anticipating The Rage Against God here: "I long to see him take the next stage in his writer's journey and examine, with his unsparing honesty, the rich human reality of the division he believes is now more important than the split between Left and Right — the deeper gulf between the restless progressive and the Christian pessimist. This division, the difference between between Prometheus and St Paul, the chasm that divides Shelley from T. S. Eliot, Lloyd George from Lord Salisbury, is nowhere better encapsulated than in the contrast between Hitchens major and minor. While Peter may feel that the choice between Left and Right needs proper definition, for many of us the choice between Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens is the truly difficult one to make". ([3]) Presumably Gove will get round to reviewing the book at some point, and I'm thinking about mining the above quote to pad out the introduction. Jprw (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I decided to round off the intro with the Gove quote but it may need rewording. Jprw (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Balance
I included the Hoggart link precisely because it is critical, though admittedly fairly brief (bear in mind that mentions of this kind in prominent columns have more impact than lengthy back-of-the-book reviews). But I'm sure it won't be the last such.
There's now a second reference in the 'Daily Telegraph' of 30th March 2010: [4] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be difficult to justify referring to Hoggart's short paragraph. But why hasn't there been made a full-blown, vituperative attack from The Guardian, I wonder? Jprw (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added the Moore ref -- it's a good high profile ref but still positive. Maybe The Observer will pitch in this weekend with a scathing attack, and do something to restore a semblance of balance? Jprw (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
GA/FA status
I'm attempting to enlist the help of other editors to get this article up to good or even featured status. While workling on The Real Global Warming Disaster another editor suggested this which I suggest we use as our template/guide. Jprw (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think this article is coming along well. In addition to the helpful tips on the page you link to, I suggest:
- Formatting the references correctly using the templates such as CiteNews or CiteBook.
- Make sure that all information in the intro is also mentioned in the main body text. If necessary, that may mean shortening the intro or expanding the body.
- Add a background section, if enough information is available. Currently, background information appears to be included in the intro, so that probably shold be separated out into its own Background section. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviews
A critical review, from the New Statesman online blogs:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/04/atheism-faith-hitchens-blame
Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added the NS review. I think that in a short period the article has filled out nicely. We also have the reaction subsequent to the May 1 US publishing date to look foward to, and I wonder if C Hitchens will be reviewing it? In the meantime, if anyone has a hard copy of the book the second and third parts of the synopsis need attention. Once that gets done I'm going to nominate The Rage Against God for GA status -- probably in mid May after the US publication, but I'll need advice from other editors on how to go about this. Jprw (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)