Talk:The God Who Riots

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability[edit]

The notability of this book is borderline right now, but if I don't come across any more sources I think it's enough to pass anyway. The reviews in Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Sojourners are all greater than 100 words and as far as I can tell each of the sources are reliable. I'll keep looking and hopefully new reviews will be published soon. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: Marked this as reviewed, but are Foreword Reviews and Sojourners RS? See here. VickKiang 03:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VickKiang, thank you for your concern. Considering your uncertainty regarding the reliability of some of the sources I've provided my analysis of the four sources I think best demonstrate the notability of this book. I know you only questioned the reliability of Foreword Reviews and Sojourners, but I figured it'd help to have all four analyzed next to each other for greater context. I haven't provided secondary sources yet to establish what other publications think of these websites, but I might open a more thorough discussion at RSN with secondary sources at a later date. These are my initial thoughts on the sources in question and I may alter the table as time goes on. Is there anything in particular about Foreword Reviews and Sojourners that you are concerned about? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Source in question	Is the website reputable?	Is the author on staff or a contributor?	Is the website, parent company, or author notable?	Is the source used in the correct context?	Is the source biased or partisan?	Is the source an opinion piece?	Is the source sponsored content or a press release?	Is the source self-published or user generated?	Is the source currently listed at perennial sources?	Has the source been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard?	Does the article itself contain errors?	Is the source reliable?
Publishers Weekly	According to the about page, the company has been publishing book reviews for 150 years. The company has an editorial staff and thorough submission guidelines.	There is no author listed for the book review, but there is a Contact Us page with a list of staff members	The website, Publishers Weekly, has its own Wikipedia article The parent company, PWxyz, LLC, does not have its own Wikipedia article, but there is a redirect There is no author listed for the book review	Yes, the source is a book review published on a website dedicated to reviewing books. However, the website is not focused on religion. Considering the article is a review of the book it is clearly "focused on the topic at hand."	TLDR: No As far as I can tell, PW is not biased religiously or politically. The only bias I can think of would be PW's bias against indie publications, which would mean PW is less likely to write a review about this particular book.	These are all book reviews so they are largely the opinion of their authors. However, I've provided clear attribution and the reviews are enough to write a solid reception. It's also worth noting that WP:RSOPINION states that "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources."	TLDR: No The article itself does not contain any indication that the review is sponsored content. The Advertising Info page does contain a link to details concerning Sponsored Posts and General Advertising and Sponsored Content Guidelines, which states that "All advertising content must be clearly distinguishable from editorial content. PW will label an advertisement with the word 'Advertisement' when, in its opinion, doing so is necessary to clearly distinguish between editorial and advertising content."	TLDR: No The Submission Guidelines page indicates that anyone can submit a request to have a book reviewed, but it doesn't look like anyone can write the review itself. All submissions appear to have a three to four month editorial review period before being published.	No	Yes, here	As far as I can tell, the reviews do not contain any grammatic or spelling errors. I have read the book and nothing in these reviews stand out to me as factually incorrect. I can check whether the quotes are correct and whether the names that the review mentions are correct at a later date if needed.	Yes, I believe the information I've provided here suggests that these sources are reliable enough to contribute to notability. I think the weakest point of reliability for all of the sources is the author themselves rather than the publication they are writing in, but I don't think that disqualifies the sources in this context.
Library Journal	According to the about page, the company has been publishing book reviews for 140 years. They have both digital and print editions and an editorial staff. According to their submissions page, they are somewhat selective in what they published.	Unfortunately, Jacqueline Parascandola is not listed as a staff member on the Contact Us page, but I can't tell if the page is supposed to be a comprehensive list of staff members or not (especially considering the page is called "Contact Us" and not "Staff Members" or "Our Team"). I don't see anything stating what the relationship is between the author and the publication. It looks like the author has written 51 reviews for the website dating back to 2012.	The website, Library Journal, has its own Wikipedia article The parent company, Media Source Inc., has its own Wikipedia article The author, Jacqueline Parascandola, does not have their own Wikipedia article		TLDR: No As far as I can tell, LJ is not biased religiously or politically. The only bias I can think of would be LJ's bias against indie publications, which would mean LJ is less likely to write a review about this particular book.		TLDR: No The article itself does not contain any indication that the review is sponsored content. The Advertise link redirects to media.libraryjournal.com where it looks like you could maybe buy an advertisement on the website, but probably not a review.	TLDR: No I can't find anything suggesting personal connections between the reviewer and the book's author. The Submit Features/News page indicates that anyone can submit article ideas, but the page gives the impression that they are selective in what they choose to publish and the submission must include information regarding the author's connection to the subject.	No	No
Foreword Reviews (also available as a PDF)	According to the about page, the company has been publishing book reviews since 1998. They have both digital and print editions and an editorial staff. According to the submissions page, the staff appear to spend up to four months reading the book and writing the review. During which, the "managing editor will carefully critique whether [the book] meets our editorial standards."	Unfortunately, Jeremiah Rood is not listed as a staff member on the Contact Us page, but I can't tell if the page is supposed to be a comprehensive list of staff members or not (especially considering the page is called "Contact Us" and not "Staff Members" or "Our Team"). The author is listed on the website as a "Book Reviewer" and has written 191 reviews (by my count) for the website dating back to 2016.	The website, Foreword Reviews, does not have its own Wikipedia article The parent company, Foreword Magazine, does not have its own Wikipedia article The author, Jeremiah Rood, does not have their own Wikipedia article		TLDR: No As far as I can tell, Foreword Reviews is not biased religiously or politically. The only bias I can think of would be Foreword Reviews' bias in favor of indie publications, which would mean Foreword Reviews is more likely to write a review about this particular book. The About page is largely dedicated to discussing how Foreword Reviews focuses on Indie publications stating that "we strive to promote voices that are unheard, overlooked, or even silenced."		TLDR: No The article contains a disclosure at the bottom that says "No fee was paid by the publisher for this review." The Advertise With Us link on the website's sidebar suggests that people can buy ads on the website, but doesn't say anything about paying for book reviews. The Get Your Book Reviewed page indicates that paid reviews are available for a $499 fee. All paid reviews appear to include a "Clarion Rating" at the top and a disclosure of payment at the bottom. I found this article on their website explaining the process.	TLDR: No I can't find anything suggesting personal connections between the reviewer and the book's author. The FAQ link on the website's sidebar contains a section dedicated to article submissions, which links to a page on the secondary website with details. The page indicates that submissions have a four month editorial review and notes that they are somewhat selective in what they publish.	No	No
Sojourners	According to the about page, the company has been publishing news since 1975. They have both digital and print editions and an editorial staff. The editorial policies page is thorough and states that the source publishes updates and corrections when needed and clearly identifies its sources which are listed at WP:RSEDITORIAL as indicators of reliability.	Unfortunately, Karen González is not listed as a staff member on the Our Team page, but I don't see anything stating what the relationship is between the author and the publication. It looks like the author has written 13 articles for the website dating back to 2016.	The website, Sojourners, has its own Wikipedia article According to the website's about page Sojourners is an independent magazine so there is no parent company The author, Karen González, does not have their own Wikipedia article	Yes, the source is a book review published on a website dedicated to religion. The topic of the Wikipedia article is a book about religion. The website is not focused on reviewing books, but I think Sojourners is reliable for religious topics. Considering the article is a review of the book it is clearly "focused on the topic at hand."	TLDR: Yes, Sojourners is a Progressive Christian publication Yes, the Advertising page states that "Sojourners is an ecumenical and progressive Christian organization." However, the About page under the Our History section states that "Sojourners" are both "progressives and conservatives" and the What We Cover section states that "Our writers have a point of view, and we insist that they be accurate in their reporting and analysis."		TLDR: No The article itself does not contain any indication that the review is sponsored content. The Press page includes a list of press releases that are clearly labelled with "For Immediate Release" or clearly indicates the source of the information. The Advertising page indicates that you can buy advertisements on the website, but unfortunately the "ad specs" link appears to be dead and I can't find an archive of it. The Editorial Policies page contains a section dedicated to Advertising, which states that "Sojourners editorial content is separated from advertising copy visually on the printed page and online display or through prominent identification of material as an 'advertisement' in print or online. Sojourners prominently and transparently labels all sponsored content."	TLDR: No I can't find anything suggesting personal connections between the reviewer and the book's author. The editorial policies page includes a link to a page with details about submissions, which indicates that anyone can submit articles. However, the page also indicates that submissions must include reliable sources that substantiate the writer's claims. The page also indicates that the staff may take up to eight weeks to review the submission and they "reserve the right to edit for length and clarity."	No	Yes, here which seems most concerned with the website's reliability in the context of environmentalism

Thanks for your detailed replies- impressive! I knew that Publishers Weekly and Library Journal are RS, as they have editorial policies and WP articles. Sojourners looks fine to me now, the editorial policies for Foreward Reviews is slightly less clear, but given the thorough links you provided showing about us, contact us, and submission guidelines (I doubt its submission guidelines as they seem colloquial and less detailed compared to Publishers Weekly, such as Oh, and you not only want to reach an audience of readers, but also reach the influencers, connectors, mavens, and the salespeople who can quickly get your book in the right hands. We hear you), but the problems seems minor and IMO this website is probably just above marginally reliable, and fine in this context (if I encounter this ref again at another article, I might ask at RSN), so many thanks for your work and detailed response! VickKiang 22:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Your concern regarding Foreword Reviews make sense. I'd never heard of the source prior to writing this article and had to double check it before citing it because I initially thought it might be user generated. I also just discovered a review from Booklist so I think notability has been pretty well established at this point. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I opened RSN discussions for Foreword Reviews and Sojourners: here and here. Both discussions seemed to have positive views om the sources' reliability. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]