Talk:Life (Richards book)/GA1

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good article review (see What is a good article? for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See notes below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It touches upon the main topics: Background, Synopsis, publication, and reception. However, there are many more references available and it could go into much more depth. Add a Style section and fill out some of the other sections. See notes below.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Notes
 * This may take me a day or two to complete.
 * I upgraded the image File:Life by Keith Richards.jpg Fair Use Rationale to book cover fur and included copyright holder (Weidenfeld & Nicolson)
 * Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Richards' drugs habits, his arrests and convictions, and his relationships with a number of women including Anita Pallenberg, Marianne Faithfull, Ronnie Spector and Patti Hansen, who he married in 1983. - incomplete sentence, verb?
 * coverage of this has caused much media interest.[7] - please point out where in that ref it says that it cause much media interest. I found it in this ref
 * Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3a
 * The Production/Background section could provide more details on where this book is coming from (eg. who the authors are, when in their careers the book was written...). For example, from "Fox, who wrote the 1983 true-crime book White Mischief, first interviewed Richards in 1973...". Richards' age and number of years with the Stones (at the time of publication), they last toured together in 2007 — that is at the end (near the end?) of his career — would be relevant. Did he release a new album at the same time as the book?
 * Done Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In Production or Publication - from "The publishers bought the book on the basis of a 10-page excerpt..."
 * Done Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Style
 * This section should describe how the book presents its contents and can include comments on the genre (autobiography v. memoir) and comparisons to other books. This shouldn't be value-laden (it is good/bad), but rather use neutral terms.
 * For example, the New Yorker describes it as a "rambling monologue" + "At times, the book sounds like a consequence-free version of William Burroughs's "Junky."" + "This aspect of the book, the addict's narrative, is the latest installment in a tradition that dates back to Romanticism and Thomas de Quincey's opium visions of crocodiles and other "unutterable monsters," to Crabbe, Coleridge, Byron, Baudelaire--where to stop? More specifically, "Life" follows the subcategory of the musician-addict memoir: Art Pepper's "Straight Life," Anita O'Day's "High Times Hard Times," Hampton Hawes's "Raise Up Off Me,"..."
 * For example, NY Times"writes with uncommon candor and immediacy. He’s decided that he’s going to tell it as he remembers it, and helped along with notebooks, letters and a diary he once kept, he remembers almost everything. He gives us an indelible, time-capsule feel..."
 * Never seen a Style section in a book GA and the guidelines at WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article make no mention. I see no need for a section that could only cover  information already provided elsewhere. I have expanded the production publication and reception sections however. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that guideline has not kept up with practices and needs to be updated. Examples of non-fiction books with Style sections include  and  though I do know that some non-fiction books do get GA without a Style section (either because there hasn't been sufficient media coverage or because the info is not sorted a separate section). I ask for a separate section because I feel that there is just so much information/sources available that mixing it with the other sections would unbalance the article. But as long as there is more of an effort to include more style/genre aspects into the article I'll be happy. And I really think more should be said about Richards in the Production section - all it says is that he was interviewed. I'll re-review this in 5 days. maclean (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added extra material as suggested. I did use some material from the New Yorker but not all the material you alluded to above as this is behind a pay-wall where I live. I have not added a Style section a in a short article such as this it would simply mean making three existing sections a little smaller. Later, when the book has been out for a few years and there is a substantial body of informed criticism. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding more detail. I've researched a few book articles here and I can say that the vast majority of references for a book are published in the 2 weeks around its publication date, so there likely will be very few (if any) additional informed criticism and we should make the most of the references we have now. There is more that can be fleshed out but I think this article now, at least, addresses the main aspects. I still think a separate Style section would be best, for organizational purpose (I don't get concerned about length). However, thank you for taking my suggestions into considerations and taking the time to implement the ones you agreed with. --maclean (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough review. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Never seen a Style section in a book GA and the guidelines at WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article make no mention. I see no need for a section that could only cover  information already provided elsewhere. I have expanded the production publication and reception sections however. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that guideline has not kept up with practices and needs to be updated. Examples of non-fiction books with Style sections include  and  though I do know that some non-fiction books do get GA without a Style section (either because there hasn't been sufficient media coverage or because the info is not sorted a separate section). I ask for a separate section because I feel that there is just so much information/sources available that mixing it with the other sections would unbalance the article. But as long as there is more of an effort to include more style/genre aspects into the article I'll be happy. And I really think more should be said about Richards in the Production section - all it says is that he was interviewed. I'll re-review this in 5 days. maclean (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added extra material as suggested. I did use some material from the New Yorker but not all the material you alluded to above as this is behind a pay-wall where I live. I have not added a Style section a in a short article such as this it would simply mean making three existing sections a little smaller. Later, when the book has been out for a few years and there is a substantial body of informed criticism. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding more detail. I've researched a few book articles here and I can say that the vast majority of references for a book are published in the 2 weeks around its publication date, so there likely will be very few (if any) additional informed criticism and we should make the most of the references we have now. There is more that can be fleshed out but I think this article now, at least, addresses the main aspects. I still think a separate Style section would be best, for organizational purpose (I don't get concerned about length). However, thank you for taking my suggestions into considerations and taking the time to implement the ones you agreed with. --maclean (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough review. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)