Talk:The Clean Tech Revolution/GA1

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

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)


 * Goodness me, you clearly don't like this article. Yet I don't see a major problem which can't be overcome through normal editing. Most of the external links could be removed. The Quotes section could be moved to Wikiquote. A few more third party references could be added. A good copyedit would help. Johnfos (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Have now rewritten this article, but feel free to make further improvements. Johnfos (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm sorry if I sound very frightening, but the swathes of quotation really did shock me. Your edits are in the right direction and improve the article (Links cleaned up, deletion of one section of quotes) but the fundamental problem still remains: the article consists of a couple of sections an editor's reading of the book, plus an awkward reception section. The whole thing needs to be re-worked with reference to 3rd party published sources, i.e. reviewers' descriptions of content, and interesting information on the book's genesis and publication, where that exists. I reccomend finding a new batch of sources (this is sure to be more written after the second edition), re-writing the article and re-nomination at GAN.  I can make that critique without any intended to you, the book or its authors. Best,  --Ktlynch (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't sound frightening, but you have been super-critical of this article. I have found much of your criticism to be over the top and misplaced. I felt that your tagging of the article for rewrite after presenting such a negative GAR commentary was over the top. There was no need for it. I found what you said at Wikiproject Books about the article failing "to understand the proper form for an article on non-fiction books and could do with some expert attention in that regard" was over the top and uncalled for. Your statement that the article is "little more than a publisher's own blurb for the book" is simply untrue.


 * I'm not sure why the "swathes of quotation" shocked you so much. Lots of non-fiction book GAs use extensive quotations. See for example A Short History of Progress.


 * Some of what you are saying now is quite unclear. I'm not sure what you mean by this: "the article consists of a couple of sections an editor's reading of the book". You mention the "awkward reception section" yet you have not explained what is awkward about it. Why not go in yourself and make some changes that would overcome any awkwardness?


 * You're saying that "the whole thing needs to be re-worked with reference to 3rd party published sources" but that has already been done, here. More third party sources were located and added, some long quotes removed, copyediting undertaken, etc.


 * I have included all the reliable third party sources that I have found. If you want still more sources you need to spell out exactly which sources you are referring to. And hopefully incorporate these yourself. There is a limit to what I can do myself and help from another editor would be appreciated.


 * In short I would say: This article is not perfect, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it that can't be overcome through normal editing. Please stop being super-critical and make some editing contributions yourself to improve it. I am inviting you to work with me on this. Johnfos (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've looked at some FA non-fiction book articles and can see that these have a more in-depth coverage than is presented here. But when I look at GA non-fiction book articles, The Clean Tech Revolution seems to be on a par with most of them. Some GA book articles, such as Atlas of Australian Birds, are shorter and have less third party coverage than this one.


 * Ktlynch, you've not been editing to improve the article, and you've not come forward with more suitable sources, what's going on?


 * If you are still considering delisting this article, I would ask that you first get a second opinion from an experienced GA reviewer like User:Wizardman. Johnfos (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)