Talk:A Journey/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MartinPoulter (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments before I do a full review. My first reaction is that this is excellent work, both comprehensive and showing an exemplary style. It marshalls an impressive set of references to give multiple viewpoints on a deeply controversial subject.


 * A small change I'd like to see concerns images. There is an image of Katie Price. She isn't related to the book except a reviewer used her in an analogy. The Price-Andre spat isn't going to mean much to anyone who doesn't follow UK gossip, and I doubt it'll have a lasting cultural impact. I know we're under pressure to add images, but this one adds nothing. I'm tempted to exclude the Andrew Marr picture for similar reasons, but I'm more persuadable here.
 * I've removed the Katie Price image; I've replaced the image of Marr with one of a poster calling for the Dublin protest. wacky  wace  15:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The long quotation from Geoffrey Beattie's review appears twice; once as a pull-quote and once in the article. There's no need for this duplication of such a long quote. Maybe have a shorter quotation in the article and shorter one in the pull-quote? The same applies to the Reg Keys quote.
 * Done in both cases. wacky  wace  15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikilinks are advised against in quotes, but then again they are necessary to help international readers get cultural references such as Mills and Boon. I'm not sure about this: it might be necessary to convert a couple of quotes to indirect speech.
 * I wasn't aware wikilinks were advised against in quotes, but I think here an exception can be made. It would be difficult to paraphrase the quote because it's a bit of a satirical comment; I would worry readers would think Wikipedia was interpreting normal comments to be satirical. wacky  wace  15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." - so it's not absolutely ruled out, and it's being used in the article specifically to avoid confusing the reader, so I think it may be okay for cultural references. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the politics.co.uk blog a suitable source for the article. I think the sensible thing is to have reviews from published reliable sources in the article body, and reviews in significant blogs as external links. Again, if there's something special about this blog, then I'm persuadable. Still, the quotes from that review are quite extensive, giving it greater weight in effect than some prominent published reviews.
 * I've shortened the quote from the blog, but I don't see it as an unreliable source. Watching television on the day the book was launched reporters mentioned several reviews by political blogs, including the opinion of politics.co.uk. wacky  wace  15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The caption to the first image: it would seem more neutral if it just said that the book discusses Blair's decision to take the UK to war against Iraq in 2003.
 * Re-written, but to talk about the donation rather than the invasion. wacky  wace  15:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the lede: "criticised Blair's writing" - specify: do you mean writing style? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is indeed what I meant; clarified. wacky  wace  15:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wackywace for making such rapid improvements. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Another couple of minor points: MartinPoulter (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC) ) After a more careful reading, I'm going to pass this as an exemplary GA. I'd like to see in future developments some information about publication history. For instance: in the North American version of the book, the subtitle is "My Political Life"; A Journey has also been released as an audiobook. These facts need a mention somewhere in the article, probably in an "Editions" list: see WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article. However, the main goal of creating a neutral, verifiable, well-written, stable, broad, illustrated article has been achieved. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The heading "Announcement; donation" stands out as odd, especially as there are two paragraphs. How about "Donation of proceeds" as a separate heading for the second paragraph?
 * Done wacky  wace  16:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a lengthy quote (three sentences) from the head of Random House in the first paragraph. It's just promotional boilerplate and isn't itself surprising. I'd cut it down to just the first sentence (i.e. end after "British politics")
 * Done wacky  wace  16:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Andrew Lake quote is another one that appears twice and doesn't add much. The "Mandelson... sales." section is short and snappy enough to be an appealing pull-quote. The quote in the article could then finish after "first day".
 * Done wacky  wace  16:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC
 * Thank you very much for the review; I'll get on the international and audiobook versions ASAP. wacky  wace  19:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)