Talk:The Right Side of History/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that this article is where it needs to be for GA status; I do encourage you to rework the article and resubmit it for review, but I think it needs a reworking rather than just some tweaks.

Major issues:
 * 1) The lead does not summarise the contents of the article; instead, it offers only the contents of the book.
 * 2) There is no background to the book; nothing about the writing process, the inspiration, publication, publicity, etc. I appreciate that there may not be much out there (or there may be, I don't know) but we really need to pull together something. For a recent book by a high-profile individual, there will definitely be something to say.
 * 3) The article feels like it leans towards favouring the book. Your reception section is a bit heavy on the quotes, but the quotes you've chosen as praise are hardly the most shining praise (though they are presented as if they are). I looked to the Raunch article as an example; your quote isn't necessarily praise at all, and the article as a whole is not friendly to Shapiro: "his galloping reductionism left me enervated and wishing his short book were even shorter". I'm not really sure there's any praise in the review. Relatedly, the editorialising in "Lloyd also criticizes what she believes to be a lack of hard evidence for Shapiro's claims" gives the impression that the article's author does not have sympathy for Lloyd's claims.
 * 4) Only three reviews? Prospect; Claremont Review of Books. Potentially some useful material in Vox. There's a lot more out there.
 * 5) You've got nothing about sales. A cursory Google Search - and the book's cover in the infobox - are suggesting this sold well. This should be addressed.

Minor issues:
 * "rising the rising quality of life"
 * "across the West; such as increasing" Questionable semi-colon
 * What is a "Greek-based capacity"?
 * "and empathy- virtues that" See WP:DASH. Not the only example.
 * "He further postulates that upon these two schools of thought coming into contact with one another, they merged into the very basis and foundation for the growth and expansion of Western civilization." Too wordy.
 * Your footnotes are a bit weird. Why the big long quotes? I try not to get too concerned about citation formatting at GAC, but I think some neatening up could help the article.

I recommend taking a look around for some FAs or GAs on similar topics and drawing some inspiration from them. I reviewed this one and this one at GAC, for example, and thought them very good. I wrote this one and this one and managed to get them through FAC. Those four are a little more scholarly than this one, admittedly, but they may give you an idea of an appropriate shape for the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)