Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The World Without Us

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 01:33, 23 January 2008.

[edit] The World Without Us

Check external links

Recent non-fiction book. Its been through DYK, GA, and PR. Now it meets all the FA criteria. And, I guess all the external links look fine for the moment. maclean 10:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comments Very well-researched and most of my comments are copyedit kind of stuff that I didn't do and left for you. It's comprehensive as far as I can tell and informative, but before I support I would have to see several other peers review the article.
  • In the lede: A book-length treatment of Weisman's own February 2005 Discover article "Earth Without People", the text is a thought experiment about what would happen to the natural and built environment if humans suddenly disappeared. I think this is a run-on sentence.
  • The author of four other books and numerous articles for magazines, Weisman traveled around the world to interview academics, scientists and other authorities. Rephrase this sentence so that in five years when he has maybe six books published, it still informs that at the time he had written four previous books.
  • He uses quotes from these interviews to explain the effects of the natural environment and substaniate predictions. misspelled substantiate and go with "to substantiate".
  • In the U.S. it was moderately successful, reaching #6 on the New York Times Best Seller list[3] and #1 on the San Francisco Chronicle Best-Sellers list in September 2007. Moderately successful? Isn't that an understatement, considering it was on the NYTimes best seller list, but perhaps that doesn't translate into great success. So a qualifier between moderate and great.
  • It has received largely positive reviews, specifically for the journalistic and scientific writing style, but some have questioned the relevance of its subject matter. Maybe "The novel has received... specifically for Weisman's journalistic and scientific writing style..."?
  • I don't know how common the term built environment is, but if you could elaborate on this somewhere or wikilink to it. Obviously it's cities and such, but there's always nuances to these things written up somewhere... or maybe not.
  • on the crash of Maya civilization should be Mayan civilization.
  • "we can't predict what the world will be 5 million years later by looking at the survivors." See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences. The punctuation doesn't conform throughout the article.
  • and would likely to collapse in a major earthquake or other natural disaster. the phrase is a little broken.
  • Cappadocia was built in thousands of years ago out of volcanic tuff, still stands today, and would be likely to survive for centuries to come. broken too... over thousands of years... and stills stands today?...
  • Hmmm... the Synopsis section needs work. That middle paragraph is too big.
  • Genre section: Excellent.
  • Other cover art uses contrasts of the natural environment with a decaying built environment. This sentence in Publication is awkward. Perhaps "Some of the other cover art contrasts the natural..."
  • You might want to re-arrange the sections. The Publication section should probably go right after the Synopsis section. Then Reception. And finally Genre. But definitely publication shouldn't be last, because it was one of the first things that occurred in the history of this novel.

Hope this helps.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the early review. I fixed or re-phrased those sentences. I split the second paragraph in "Synopsis" so one deals with nature taking over and the second with the built structures decaying. I rearranged the sections as recommended. I fixed the puncuation in quotations. --maclean 23:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow- sorry for not commenting earlier.
    I suggest you notify contributors that it is now in FA review - I would appreciate their input into how they feel regarding its quality.
    Weak Oppose - well written, well - participated, well- referenced,
    In reception: criticism should not be prefaced by "However" - it is not however-ly - it is "on the other hand"-ly or even better "The book was criticized for"-ly and section on genre seems an expansion of reception rather than an actual discussion/relate of the book's genre.
    Synopsis (it seems to me) should be renamed "Book's Content" or simply "Content" as a more descriptive term for what is in that section.
    --Keerllston 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the "However", switched "Synopsis" with "Content", and re-wrote portions of the "Genre" section to focus less on opinions and relate it more to style. --maclean 02:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for messaging me on my user talk page
I suggest canvassing in the form of Friendly Notices to get more reviews of the candidacy in prompt fashion. - see WP:CANVASS
imo the first sentence of Genre should explain for better writing style and better organization like following or similarly: it fits into the [[non fiction]], [[science journalism]] and [[environmental book]] genres.. - the genre section still deals with criticism "philosophical bank shot" is not put in proper context as to be talking about genre.
in Reception again criticism is not a however or a but - it is I strongly suggest"On the book's concept most reviewers found it to be creative and original but several found the lack of an anthropomorphic point of view hurt the book's relevance" -especially since it seems you are talking about different reviewers talking about different things - unrelated subjects- I think better organization in Reception Section would serve to clearing this up
I believe "Reception" and "Genre" are the only sections needing improvement.
--Kiyarrllston 23:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • In the "Reception" I removed those odd qualifier/transitions. In "Genre" I added a better intro sentence and summarized the two critics' take on the books approach, without the opinionated wording of the quotes. --maclean 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed at PR and this has improved since. I'm presently reading the book and will have a better comment when done. One small note: I would return to the perfectly acceptable Synopsis as a section heading. Marskell (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your input Marskell - I understand synopsis to be more of a one-paragraph affair - while the current form is more than just the general resume of the book but is more - it gives an outline for how the book goes over four paragraphs. Not as concise as I would expect a Synopsis to be. On the other hand I don't think content a very "professional" word - synopsis is.--Kiyarrllston 11:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I look forward to your assessment, Marskell. The "Contents/Synopsis" and half of the "Background" sections were written using the book. The remainder of the article was written from the secondary sources in the Reference section, all but a few available online for everybody to read. --maclean 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Very much improved... my comment seems to be getting more and more outdated, :D.--Kiyarrllston 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written and adequately sourced. A few suggestions:
  • Two red links are kind of an eyesore: AudioFile (magazine) is linked to twice (once in body and once in ref 37 and there is also BBC Audiobooks.
  • There is a tense discrepancy in the second paragraph of the lead. "Weisman traveled" and "He uses quotes". Because the writing process is in the past, I would switch the last example to past tense.
  • "Contents" is the wrong word entirely for a book, and I do not believe that "Content" is proper, either, because it is vague. The Books Wikiproject suggests "Synopsis" or "Plot" -- I would go for "Synopsis" because a plot narrative is more for fictional works.

Overall, a nicely summarized article! I enjoyed reading it despite never hearing of this work before. Nice job. María (habla conmigo) 15:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I retract my suggestion that it be changed from Synopsis.--Kiyarrllston 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Maria that plot is more for fictional works - there seems to be no similar term for non-fiction works--Kiyarrllston 23:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not too concerned about the redlinks, and I admire your creating articles to better cover the subject of audiobooks on Wikipedia, but like I said, these two links do rather stick out. You could always unlink them until articles or redirects come about, perhaps? María (habla conmigo) 01:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The usual MOS issues: spaces around ellipsis dots, please; period after closing quotes where the quotation starts within a WP sentence. Tony (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I corrected those [1] --maclean 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellently written article. The only WP:MOS issue that I saw is that you need a non-breaking space between a number and its qualifier. I fixed these for you. Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I just set the book down and can say that coverage is fine. A little concerned over prose though. Paragraphs might be better rationalized, as some are overloaded. Serial comma usage seems inconsistent (not a huge concern). Excess blue links; I still don't like those massive lists in reception. Give me a couple of more days. Marskell (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of notes:

  • The list of radio interviews really must be shortened. I can't imagine I'm the only who doesn't like that mess of blue links.
  • More critically, Reception and Genre aren't properly rationalized. Grunwald and Braile are deployed twice, basically to make the same point.
  • I still think there are tense issues here, though it's often hard to put a finger on. I'll just keep going through it on that score. Marskell (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you Marskell. I removed some of the local or lesser known radio programs (they were just examples anyways, not a comprehensive list). On your second point it is a 'criticism of the approach to the genre' so it is difficult to balance. I have tried to create more balance here [2]. --maclean 05:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to support. In terms of gathering together reviews, this is clearly comprehensive. It's still a bit quote-heavy but it covers every angle. I've tried to eliminate what wordiness I've noticed and I split up a couple of massive paragraphs. Marskell (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.