Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/When God Writes Your Love Story/archive1

When God Writes Your Love Story

 * 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 User:Ian Rose 10:15, 31 July 2013.


 * Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria. This article has received a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copyeditors and has also passed a good article nomination. Neelix (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, as GA Reviewer. I was pleasantly surprised and impressed with the ability of to write the article in a neutral tone that amply satisfies NPOV, particularly with regard to the article's subject matter. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done
 * If you include a quotation in a caption, you should source it immediately (as you would do in a lead); however, as the Ulysses caption is quite long you might consider cutting everything after the semi-colon
 * File:Ulysses_and_the_Sirens_by_H.J._Draper.jpg: why would this be PD in the US? Do we know when/where it was first published? Also, possible to include an alternate source?
 * As The Pine Log is a student newspaper, what makes its writer's view significant and reliable?
 * Page ranges should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have cut everything after the semicolon in the Ulysses caption, removed the student newspaper source, and fixed the dashes. Herbert James Draper, the painter of Ulysses and the Sirens, was from England and died in 1920. The Victorian Web states that Draper painted the piece circa 1909. Is that enough information do demonstrate the copyright status of the image in the United States? Neelix (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine, thanks - pre-1923 is PD in the US, and with that DOD there'd be no restored copyright to complicate things. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Do you have any further concerns I might address? Neelix (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

 * Lead. In the lead you say "The book tells the story of how the couple first met and got married." which immediately confuses me. I think you should clarify that the couple are the authors of the book and it is about them.
 * The critical reception part in the lead strikes me as odd. I'd expect to see mention of professional critic reviews, mentioning that Filipina actresses approved of the book strikes me as a bit odd. For the lead i'd expect "critically well-received" or whatever and some mention of professional acclaim aside from peers.


 * Background. "When God Writes Your Love Story is a 1999 book by Eric and Leslie Ludy.[1] It is the third book that they wrote together." You don't need to write it as if it's the beginning of the article again. I'd write it as "When God Writes Your Love Story" is the third book written by Eric and Leslie Ludy, published in 1999.
 * "The book was endorsed by Leslie and Les Parrott, authors of Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts; Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America and Joe White, President of Kanakuk Kamps." Strikes me as a bit premature to say this, I'd mention that nearer the bottom of the section.


 * Critical response. This long section is really too diverse to constitute one full section and as a result it affects the structure and flow of it. It needs to be made more coherent and split it into several sub section a] Professional critic response b] Response of other authors c] Response of others like the actresses.

I'd expect a section of the article to discuss the main themes in more detail. I suppose the plot does partly cover this and there might be a lack of material to explore it in more detail but that's my initial feeling on it.

♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * References. Please place all books in the biblography section and place the book page notes in the above for consistency with the other two books.
 * I have reworded the lead to clarify that the book is about the authors, rewrote the "critical response" portion of the lead to focus on reviews by professional critics, reworded the first sentence of the "Background" section for flow, moved the endorsements towards the end of that section, split the "Critical response" section into subsections, and moved all of the books to the bibliography. I would be glad for the article to have a "Themes" section, although the amount of discussion of themes that already exists in the "Background" section is all that I was able to extract from the sources I have been able to find. I could write a "Themes" section using the book itself as a source, although that might go beyond what a primary source ought to be used for. Neelix (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I was thinking of a mixture of using the book and the perspectives of scholars, but if the scholarly work doesn't exist then don't worry.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  06:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it does. Do you have any further concerns I might address? Neelix (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments If there's one thing I'm truly clueless about it's religion-based self-help books (I reckon that I have a better understanding of quantum physics or Mongolian history...). With that disclaimer in mind, I have the following comments on this nomination:
 * "In the book, the authors challenge singles" - "challenge" is something of a loaded word (a "challenge" is a good thing in this kind of context) - how about something like "advise"?
 * The "Background" section seems more like a summary, which is really the role of the lead. Such a section should discuss how the book came about and the context in which it was published.
 * "It became a bestseller on the Christian book market." - how many sales are we talking about here?
 * After reading the 'Contents' section I'm not sure that I understand the key recommendations the authors are putting forward - do they think that people should simply wait until they bump into their sole mate? How are they supposed to recognise them?
 * Who are Mark Matlock, Jason Evert and Christine Gardner? I presume that they're also Christian self-help book writers?
 * "Gardner argues that the result of this woman's failure to follow the Ludys' advice and leave God to write her love story "was a fractured fairy tale, one without a happy ending."" - does a book published by a prestigious academic press which, according to its Wikipedia article and Amazon page, provides a critical analysis of this genre really blame the woman for failing to follow the Lundys' advice?
 * "two college professors" - at the risk of seeming a snob, do we know what college they teach at?
 * "While referencing When God Writes Your Love Story specifically on several occasions, the Petersons acknowledge that the Ludys' book is one of many books with this premise and write that "it is the entire genre that is problematic." - I found this interesting, and it would be good if the article could ground the book in the genre.
 * "In Eyes Wide Open: Avoiding the Heartbreak of Emotional Promiscuity, Brienne Murk identifies "Faithfully" as one of her favourite songs." - who is Brienne Murk?
 * Likewise, who are Christine A. Colón and Bonnie E. Field?
 * "In 2005, Louisiana Tech University journalism major Amber Miles wrote an article published by The Times " - why are Ms Miles views worth recounting? Also, The Times without any further description is normally used in reference to the famous British newspaper.
 * What is the "Clear Choices Pregnancy Resources Center", and why are its director's views worth including?
 * Most of the critical responses to the book seem somewhat lightweight (reviews in provincial newspapers and specialist websites). I was expecting to see a critic give the book both barrels given that it's offering some seriously bad advice (IMO). I imagine that feminist writers would have some interesting things to see about the notion that "single women should practice serving their fathers and brothers" (even with the proviso that blokes should do the same), and the material about God offering "new beginnings to people who have been unchaste or who have been sexually abused" seems controversial - do they authors really group the "unchaste" together with victims of sexual abuse?
 * To clarify the above point, my underlying concern is that most of the responses to the book noted in the article are from people who appear to share the authors' viewpoint and are praising the work as it agrees with their views. This isn't optimum for helping our readers to understand the book as it doesn't provide a serious critical analysis. Nick-D (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have switched "challenge" to "advise", stated the number of copies sold, clarified how the Ludys suggest that people should recognize their soulmates, added sources to explain the identities of the people who comment on the book, removed the "Times" source, and removed the statement from Higdon. I do not believe that sources exist that explain the things you suggest should be added to the "Background" section. What would you recommend I do to make this section more what it ought to be? I believe that my reading of Gardner's statement is accurate, but I would be grateful for a second set of eyes on that source to make sure that I have correctly interpreted what Gardner suggests; she certainly doesn't take on a condemnatory tone towards the girl in question. This source states that the Petersons have taught at Eastern University and North Park University, but I don't know which is the one where they taught the course in question; should I mention both in the article? How would you recommend that I further ground the article in its genre? I have already added the appropriate categories to the article and written that the book has been associated with other books in the genre such as Joshua Harris's I Kissed Dating Goodbye and Boy Meets Girl. I know nothing of Clear Choices Pregnancy Resources Center other than what is stated in the corresponding source, which isn't much; I assume that it is a crisis pregnancy center. A Google search doesn't turn up much either. I do not believe that the combatative sources you are looking for exist. I have not omitted any sources I have been able to find; whether positive or negative, I have used all the reviews I have come across. I have searched for sources using Google Books and Google News in addition to academic journal databases. I do not know of any more reviews of the book, nor do I know where I might find additional reviews. It is likely that almost all of the reviewers have a similar perspective to the book's authors because any reviewers who did not share a similar perspective would not consider the book worth reviewing. How would you recommend that I address this issue? Neelix (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In regards to the Gardner book, it turns out that I have online access to it through my university. I've checked page 114, and don't think that it says anything like "Gardner argues that the result of this woman's failure to follow the Ludys' advice and leave God to write her love story" at all - my reading of the passage is that Gardner believes that this book provided simplistic advice and left the woman with unrealistic or confused expectations of how relationships actually work (the woman is described as seeing relationships in the context of the book's advice, but then gets confused and possibly upset when she tries to put it into practice). She's certainly not endorsing the book's guidance as this text in the article implies. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gardner doesn't write that the Ludys' book provided simplistic or unrealistic advice, but I agree with you that she does not endorse the book either. I have removed Gardner from the list of American authors who positively received the book and I have reworded the statement about Gardner's reception of the book to avoid bias. Do you believe that the article now more accurately represents Gardner's reception of the Ludys' book? Neelix (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works. Unfortunately she doesn't specifically discuss this book in detail. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is unfortunate. Have I addressed your other concerns? Neelix (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really I'm afraid: the level of background and serious critical analysis is much less than I'd expect to see in a FA on a big-selling book. I appreciate that sources may not exist on these topics, but I can't support I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that the subject of this article inherently prevents the article from being featured? I am willing to improve the article in whatever way consensus deems best. Neelix (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not so much the subject as (IMO only) the lack of sources providing the coverage needed to raise the article to FA standard I'm afraid. I note that other editors have differing views, and I'm a fence sitter here in recognition of the lack of sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Comments from Jim This sounds like a book I'd go a long way to avoid! Nevertheless, that shouldn't detract from the high quality of this article. A few concerns follow:
 * It's in a bit of a geographical vacuum. You would assume that a book like this is likely to be American, but that's only confirmed, indirectly, in the third paragraph. Similarly, there is no indication of the nationalities of the Petersons, Colon or Field. Since there is a review from the Philippines, we need some indication of who these people are (name of the anonymous college for the Petersons would help)
 * Why do the views of Colon and Field matter? Their only qualification seems to be that they are single women in their thirties, hardly makes them of literary or religious significance.
 * Was it only published in the US? If not, where else?
 * The sales figure seems to be sourced to the authors, hardly a reliable source. Surely there must be some independent verification of book sales in the US as there is here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for your willingness to review this article despite your distaste for its subject. I have made it clearer in the text of the article that the book is American, indicated the nationalities of the other authors, added the qualifications of Colon and Field, and added information about the publications in other countries. The sales figure is sourced to the cover of the 10th anniversary edition of the book; I would have expected that this information would therefore be something written by the publisher rather than the authors themselves. I have spoken with a resource librarian at my local library and he believes that the only source for the sales figure is likely to be the publisher. I do not know of another way to verify the book sales, but I would be glad to pursue any avenue of research that you might suggest. Neelix (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the responses above, I should have realised that it would be the publisher's data (although I'm still surprised there is no industry sales figures collation). Just two further things before I support  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the sales figure for the US only, all English language or all languages?
 * I'd rather assumed that Clear Choices Pregnancy Resources Center was something like an NHS medical facility here, but looking at the web info it's clear that it's a pro-Christian, anti-abortion organisation. This may be obvious to an American, but perhaps a couple of words of clarification to help non-US readers?
 * I have done a bit more searching and have added a source to the article that clarifies the nature of Clear Choices Pregnancy Resources Center. Both the book cover and the online press releases I have found indicate the sales figure for the book without any stipulations of country or language, which should indicate that the figure covers all forms of the book. Neelix (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sales thing isn't a big deal, jsut looking for clarification if available. The edits clarify the agenda of the centre, no further queries, changed to support above  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sadads

 * Support after changes made since feedback. Good Job Neelix! Sadads (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally, the article is well researched and organized, however, there are multiple points where I am noticing clunky prose. I will leave it below as I work through the article:
 * "It became a bestseller on the Christian book market, leading to it being republished in 2004 and then being revised and expanded in 2009." Perhaps focus on removing multiple extra helping verbs, which in this case creates a much more wordy for example "After becoming a bestseller on the Christian book market, the book was republished in 2004 and then revised and expanded in 2009."
 * "The Ludys argue that God should be in charge of one's love life and that pursuing a relationship with God is more important than pursuing a relationship with another human being." This is a wordy chain of ideas, how might it be a bit more concise?
 * "Leslie writes that God offers new beginnings to people who have been unchaste or who have been sexually abused." How about "Leslie writes that God offers new beginnings to formerly unchaste or sexually abused individuals." Lot less wordy parallel ideas.


 * I have implemented the rewording suggestions you have made. I would appreciate any further prose (or other) recommendations you are willing to provide. Neelix (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am glad they are helpful. Sorry I didn't do the whole article in one fell swoop. I am making a few more small prose changes and have some more questions. Sadads (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Another frequently mentioned concept in the book is "the beautiful side of love", which the Ludys describe as the positive aspects of romance." What do they mean by this concept? How could you communicate the difference between this "beautiful side" and presumably a "less beautiful side" (unfortunately this kind of binary language is problematic, but if they use it you can't assume that it has uniform meanings amongst our readers).
 * There needs to be a citations for the pages in which the quotes are drawn from, otherwise people can't do verifiability or reuse that particular quoted saying in their own research well.
 * Also, in the plot, could we outline the chapters more? Right now, I have a sense of the larger argument and some of the tools they use to map that arguement (ironically a lot of polytheistic greek myths...), but I don't have a good sense of how they break out those ideas (what order, or sequence of elements). Do different chapters have different emphasis? Are they a bunch of repetitive elements that don't change much, thus they summary can map all of them at once?
 * In the only lead, the only mention of negative reception is "Rick Holland of Crosswalk.com criticized the Ludys for basing too much of their description of dating on anecdotes and not enough on the Bible." However, many of the different reviewers had differences of opinion with the Ludy's, how might you better summarize that disagreement in the lead? Why is Holland so prominent?
 * Many of the paragraphs in the Critical Response section begin very abruptly, so the reader has to wait a couple sentences before they can understand the entire purpose or function of the sentence. How might you use topic sentences that summarize the main focus of the paragraph to orient the reader for the various types of information they will receive in the rest of the sentence?
 * I have elaborated on the concept of "the beautiful side of love", added page references for the quotations, added section summaries to the "Contents" section, added more negative reception to the lead, and added introductory summary sentences to several paragraphs in the "Critical response" section. I would be grateful if you would let me know if I have sufficiently improved the clarity and flow of the article. Neelix (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally, everything looks much better in the reception section (easier to follow and reads less like a list). Put my support above, Sadads (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by American Eagle

 * I honestly don't understand why File:Anne Curtis (2009).jpg is used on the page. This article is nearly FA-quality. Why is there a picture of unrelated Filipino actress who briefly reviewed the book? Her mention in the article is only a blurb. The image literally copies the text from the body, almost in its entirety. I cannot see why a full scale image of this indie actress deserves a place on a featured article of When God Writes Your Love Story. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional site for Anne Curtis.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 19:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The image does not appear promotional to me. There are plenty of images on featured articles that have a similar connection to the subject of their articles. Consider, for example, the image of John Paul Stevens on the Freedom for the Thought That We Hate featured article; he is pictured because he reviewed the book. Similarly, Neil Gaiman is pictured on the Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell featured article because he promoted the book. I think the image is benefitial and should remain, but I am willing to remove it if there is consensus to do so. Neelix (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference is that John Paul Stevens is a .S. Supreme Court Justice (on an article regarding civil rights and freedom of speech), and Neil Gaiman has "has promoted Clarke's work since the beginning of her career". What connection does Anne Curtis have with the Ludys? Has she met them? Is she an expert on marital relations? From what I gather, she's a known actress in the Filipino-Australian communities, but without any connection to this book. I definitely think this is undue weight. As you said, Neelix, I would like to see where consensus is established.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 23:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Highlighting such a minor endorsement of the book does strike me as being WP:UNDUE: Ms Curtis isn't authority on this kind of book or topic, and her link to the book is pretty minor. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the image of Anne Curtis according to the recommendations of American Eagle and Nick-D above. Neelix (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support from Cliftonian. I think this meets the FA standards and so am upgrading to support. I hope you have a great trip Neelix! —Cliftonian (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.