A fact from The Land of Lost Content (book) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 April 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the article currently stands, the description of the book in "Content" runs to 2 sentences for a total of 85 words, and the second of those sentences concerns the postscript. Whatever we believe about short, crisp Good Articles, one-sentence accounts of books are probably not quite up to the mark. The "Reception" section, too, while a little fuller, covers only four opinions of the book; and there are only seven references in total.
Leaving aside for a moment the scanty coverage of Chevenix-Trench's life before he entered the teaching profession, the crux of this article must surely lie in its exposition of the book's strengths and weaknesses regarding the book's account of his work as a teacher, and especially as a headmaster. At the moment it hints that Chevenix-Trench was pretty hopeless without saying in what manner that expressed itself, beyond the mention in "Background" that his use of corporal punishment had been criticized. Was he a flogger? A pervert? Too weak to control his staff, let alone his pupils? We certainly don't learn any of this from the article, nor whether the book says anything of the sort. What was "really wrong with the British Establishment"? Why did Paul Foot object to the book's portrayal of the man? What was really going on? The article, in short, does nothing in the direction of delineating its subject, let alone actually elucidating it.
A quick fail would therefore not be entirely inappropriate, and while it would be pleasant to imagine that some stern reviewers' remarks might galvanize editors into vigorous remedial action, it would certainly require a fairly remarkable turnaround in the article's degree of attention to detail to bring it up to what one might imagine would be appropriate for an encyclopedic article on this scholarly topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A misunderstanding, I think. The article is not about Chenevix-Trench and his various failings (which are described in considerable detail at Anthony Chenevix-Trench), but about the book.
No misunderstanding, I am quite clear it's about the book and crucially the reviews of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should the "Content" section describe what Peel's opinions (as expressed in the book) were on the various questions you pose? And/or the book reviewers'/commentators' opinions of those opinions? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, on first pass, I'm not concerned about the brevity issue in and of itself. I know from participating in the Chenevix-T main article review that not many sources exist on this book, so this is bound to be extremely short and have few references. If there's concern that the article itself doesn't meet notability, it could be AfDed, but those issues are independent of a GA review; this seems like what a reasonable article on the topic is likely to look like.
I do agree that it might help to elaborate on the "really wrong with the British Establishment" quotation for clarity. (I also agree with a previous comment by another editor that the lead could be slightly expanded). But I don't see this as a candidate for a quick-fail, and actually think it's trending toward passing with some expansions (that's just an early estimate, though, so don't hold me to it). I'm glad for more input either way, though, and won't be offended if this ultimately ends up at GAR if I do decide to pass it; it's all part of the process.
Sorry I don't have time to post a more thorough review today, but will try to follow up in more detail soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not every topic is suitable for GA treatment, and this could easily be a case where a book just hasn't been "big" enough, even if it meets the bare threshold for WP:GNG (I don't think deletion is plausible in this case), to be able to reach GA - we surely need a reasonable number of reasonably thorough reviews in reasonably reliable places for that. We also require sufficient coverage to convince ourselves that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic", which it clearly doesn't, at the moment. I'm sorry but a 2-sentence coverage of the book's contents is not GA level, and the Reception isn't either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate the input, and I'll take your remarks under advisement. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some minor changes as I went; feel free to revert any with which you disagree.
The lead could use perhaps another sentence or two of expansion and context. You might give a bit more context about ACT (mention schools he taught at, flogging scandal), and mention the main points for which the book was praised or criticized (over-positive outlook seems to come up in several reviews).
Despite Chiswick Chap's comment above, I have to say that on re-reading it, I'm still not bothered by the length of the "Content" section. Yes, more detail could be added here, but I think describing the structure of the book is sufficient to cover this "main aspect"; it's a chronological retelling of ACT's life, which doesn't seem to need much more detail than what you've added here. The only suggestions I'd make would be to include a note that Peel covers what would later become the flogging scandal, and perhaps a note on how he handles it/describes it, particularly if he offers any kind of editorial judgement. Second, I'd be curious to hear a bit more about what conclusions are drawn in the " draws conclusions " postscript. Is it possible to add a useful block quotation from this, or a summary of Peel's final judgement? Speaking broadly, though, I'm not concerned about total words, sentences, references, etc., just on the content.
It would be nice to have any quotation from Peel in that section if there's an appropriate one, but not strictly necessary for GA status.
"would have approved of the book despite its flaws" -- it's not quite clear what Kennedy considered these flaws to be; it's the first mention of them. Could just a touch more be added here?
"what is really wrong with the British Establishment" -- I agree with Chiswick Chap that it could be a little clearer what the author means by this. (That the old-boy network puts people like AC-T in positions of power)? The Foot quotation, on the other hand, seems perfectly clear to me.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
The bit about "letters to the editor" seems like it should be struck unless a secondary source can be found that mentions this as significant (especially the attempt to assess them with "most of which").
Many thanks for these comments (and Chiswick Chap's input as well). I will be working on this over the next two or three days. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your edits have addressed all the issues I expressed above. (Sorry for the slow response, btw; I had somehow failed to watchlist this one.) Two new, but much smaller points:
"Notable among the book's conclusions" -- probably best to avoid "notable" here per WP:WTA; it's just a small bit of editorial commentary, but commentary nonetheless. Perhaps this sentence could just be rephrased as "According to Peel, Bradfield, Eton and Fettes all saw Chenevix-Trench become headmaster at "critical points in their history", and that he was "a headmaster whose personality met many of their priorities, breathing fresh life into creaking limbs"."
The quotations from the book's conclusions need inline references with page numbers.
Thanks again for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all the above points have been addressed, and I think this one's ready to pass. In the interests of fairness, though, I'll hold this open for another 2-3 days to give Chiswick Chap or anyone else the chance to raise any final action points I may be overlooking. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no further objection here, I'm marking this as a pass. Thanks again for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
