Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Journey/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 12:08, 6 July 2012.

A Journey

 * Nominator(s): Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This autobiographical account of Tony Blair's years in Downing Street was promoted to GA in January 2011, but a shot at FAC the following month was unsuccessful. I created the article in August 2010, but didn't take part in the promotion process. More recently I've returned to it following my last FAC, and submitted it for peer review. It has received an extensive peer review by both The Rambling Man and Daniel Case. Daniel has also done a significant copy edit. I now believe it meets the standard required so am putting it forward for its second FAC. As always any assistance with images, graphics, etc, would be very helpful. Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Images:
 * File:Princess diana bristol 1987 01.jpg - I'd crop this to focus on her head, like this. Removed
 * File:Bush 43 10-19-04 Stpete.jpg - I'm not sure the copyright holder is the uploader. We have many free images of Bush, so replacing this will be easy. Replaced with official portrait. (PD)
 * File:Tony Blaire's Visit to Dublin - 4th. September 2010.jpg - This falls afoul of the freedom of panorama laws in Britain Ireland, as it is not a "permanent" fixture. Should be removed. I'll be nominating it for deletion. Removed


 * Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk.


 * K, I'm leaning support but would like to see a bit more feedback from editors familiar with British politics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Biased support I worked extensively on the article around Christmas 2010, took it through the GA process and unsuccessfully nominated it for FA. I haven't been active here for about a year because of exams and other such things, but I am happy to see an article which Paul MacDermott first created being taken through FAC again. I have read through the article again and am satisfied that I did not leave any errors and Paul has brought it up from GA standard to FA standard.  wacky wace  18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "It is generally accepted that a Prime Minister does not discuss details of conversations he has with the Sovereign." - source? Although I think this is self-evident from "The Queen reportedly felt . . ." and hence the Note is unnecessary. Also, why are the reviews restricted to the US and UK? And why is an entire paragraph devoted to Zakaria's review, while British reviewers only get one sentence?—indopug (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref added for "It is generally acccepted".
 * Shrunk NYT quote and merged with previous paragraph.
 * Re:UK and US reviews. They're the two countries where Blair has had the greatest influence. Will look for other reviews though: Perhaps The Australian, Straits Times, Irish Times, etc. Other suggestions welcome. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There don't appear to be many reviews outside Britain and the US, but I've found a few - from The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), The Globe and Mail (Canada) and The Hindu (India). Shall I add them? Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If those references have anything relevant to say then, yes, they should be included. If the "Reception" section is getting too long, then consider splitting out some content to create a "Style/Themes/Genre" section with the content that is descriptive of those elements. There are several comments in the Reception section that cover the wrting style/tone and how Blair approached the memoir genre. Though, nothing quite communicates the writing style/tone like a short passage quote directly from the book. maclean (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's certainly enough material in the article to do something like that. I'll look into it. Also I found one or two more international reviews, but they only seem to report the content rather than actually commenting on it. I'm quite surprised not to have found more about it on the international scene, particularly as Blair is a key player on the world stage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have been working on this offline for a couple of days so apologies for the delayed response. I've slimmed the reception section down a bit, and split the political reaction from it as I feel that is a separate issue. Also taken out a couple of reviews in favour of balance. What is left now are those I see as the most important. Also added the international section, but can remove this again if people don't think it adds anything to the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  Comments Support - having a look-through now. Will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadevertently change the meaning) and place queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I must say I find reading the synopsis of a biography in the present tense weird, but if that is consensus then so be it....


 *  Morgan said it had been purely his imagination - whose imagination - Blair's or his own....
 * His own


 * It is a shame there is no more detailed analysis of how it contrasts with other memoirs of the same time - e.g. Mandelson's The Third Man: Life at the Heart of New Labour...if any of tehse could be found with this or any other memoirs I think that would greatly enhance the article.
 * This article from Prospect Magazine briefly touches on this, though it is mainly concerned with how Blair is described by Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell in their memoirs, compared with how he portrayed himself. I'll see what else is about.
 * Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I meant. Nice find. It provides some nice contrasts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, I've got five, four of which I think have potential. Of those, however, the Lancaster University source requires access to Palgrave Journals so in reality there's actually three. I'll post some of the best quotes on the talk page and put something together from it.
 * ok, have written a draft section from information I've gathered together which can be found on the talk page. Let me know what you think.
 * Information added. I've also tweaked the lead slightly to account for the extra details.
 * prose in the first para of the history section is a little stilted, but I appreciate adherence to sources and can't honestly see any way of massaging it.....

Overall, within striking distance of FA over the line on comprehensiveness and prose. I can help if there are any political analyses in journals with fulltext available though JSTOR Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If they have some that would be very helpful. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.