Wikipedia:Peer review/Outliers (book)/archive1

Outliers (book)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the first article about a book that I've written, so there are probably a few issues with it still. The book is still at number one on the New York Times Best Seller list as of January 9, 2009, and has been there for seven weeks so far. I'd like to get as much feedback as possible before I bring it to WP:FAC. In particular, the Synopsis section might be a bit long, but I think that it also discusses several of the book's themes, so I believe it is acceptable. I don't think it needs to be split out into a separate Themes section because it works better when that information is mentioned along with the rest of the Synopsis. Synopsis could perhaps be organized better, though, so I'm open to suggestions on that. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) A couple very quick comments; I don't quite feel like doing a full review right now, maybe in a couple hours.

• Before submitting to FAC, take a look at Race Against Time (Lewis), for an example of an excellent book article.
• "When remarking that all of his books focus on singularities"
• "best seller" Hyphenate.
• "All of Gladwell's books focus on singularities" Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I browsed through a few recent book FAs including The World Without Us, Getting It: The psychology of est, and David Suzuki: The Autobiography as examples but didn't come across that one, so I will check it out. For "all", I think it should be there as without it, it seems a bit vague as to how many of his books; it really means all three of his books, so I think it makes more sense to leave it there? I removed the "of" in "all of", though, as that is used incorrectly. For "best seller", there are so many variations of the phrase; I think "bestseller" is also correct, though, so I've used that. Gary King (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• "At the end of the book, Gladwell talks about the unique roots of his Jamaican mother, Joyce, who descended from African slaves." He doesn't actually talk; maybe "discusses" or "writes about".
• "the Austin American-Statesman still reminded" reminded whom?
• I found a couple reviews which may be useful: [1] [2] and here, from a business reviewer's perspective: [3].
• I like the integration of the themes in Synopsis section. However, this makes the Synopsis section veer away from the actual synopsis of the book a bit. I see the beginning and the end, but what is in between is a bit unclear. Perhaps you could compromise by organizing the presentation of the themes in the order that they appear; a chapter-by-chapter summary wouldn't hurt either. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay fixes done. I'll add the reviews in a bit later, either tonight or tomorrow. The themes are actually in the order that they appear. There are nine chapters, it might make the Synopsis a bit long? Gary King (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've added the three reviews into the article. Gary King (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments This is looking pretty good. I made some changes along the way and tried listing everything else below. I'm used to a "Themes" section but that is for fiction. I'm not sure it's necessary for non-fiction but we'll see what other reviewers say. As it stands, the sections are a bit long and you might consider breaking them up. Synopsis, Themes, Reception, Publication Details, etc.
  • The second paragraph of the lead is a bit hard to understand. What you've written read like he writes books about singularities because they have a good chance of making the front page.. which of course doesn't make sense. Some clarity is needed about how his penchant for writing articles about singularities has translated to books.
  • "... he wanted people to realize that what society does for each other ..." Something is amiss here, grammatically. Maybe, "what people in society do for each other"?
  • I think it might be "The New York Times's"; can you verify somehow?
  • "The link between Gladwell's background and the rest of the publication to tie it all together was also appreciated." Your message is unclear here.. I'm not sure what you're saying.
  • "Several reviewers appreciated the questions asked by ..." Hm, "posed" is preferred to "asked". It's a book, after all.
  • "His speciality of academic material..." His familiarity with academic material...? His academic expertise...?
  • There's a bit of parallelism lacking when you describe his father as an academic and his mother as a Jamaican.
  • "His first opportunity to take a step towards success ..." Either step here or step later in the sentence, but not both please.
  • "He wanted to show that there were a lot more variables involved in an individual's success ..." You mix tenses in this sentence... "hopes" to "hoped", I think.
  • "Focusing on outliers, defined by Gladwell as ..." You give the term in the plural here and then the definition is of the singular.
  • "He also notes that he himself took ..." Two clauses marked by em dashes seems too much for one sentence.
  • "Gladwell points out that Langan has not reached a high level of success because of the environment that he grew up in." The second "that" is unneeded. I caught some of these, but check throughout.
  • "Noting that they both encompassed innate natural abilities ..." Encompassed isn't the right word here.. maybe typified?
  • "When he was about to be expelled from the school, he was able to '[talk] his way out of jams'" But that was one jam...
  • "The book has been generally well received by critics." This is a bit "current", will we be maintaining it?
  • "The magazine points out how the link between race and achievement are given substantive analysis ..." The link is or the links are?
  • I'm sort of out of the "reliable sources" loop but is are you going to get hassled for using the A.V. Club? Is that considered a reliable source? It is connected with The Onion, after all.

--Laser brain (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright I think I've gotten everything. As it stands, I don't think the sections are too long (my monitor is 22" however, so YMMV). If I split it up, then the new sections like Themes and Publication details would be too short. User:Ealdgyth says that the AV Club is acceptable. Gary King (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. This should pass GA easily. I could see someone at FAC asking for "more sources" so you might want to get an argument ready for that. --Laser brain (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Lede is a bit large, could cut that down a bit.
• Lots of large paragraphs throughout - these could be split apart.
• Not sure if anything relates, but could have a Further reading section?
• Background - seems to be all about the Author - perhaps retitle this subsection to Author or About the author ?

Cirt (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see where I can trim the lead. Although, the lead here is about 15% of the article, which is roughly similar to most other FAs. Regarding large paragraphs, I originally had them smaller, but since they can only be split in certain areas of each paragraph (to not disturb the flow) some paragraphs that were split off were way too short on their own. I'll find some books for Further reading if they are relevant, like perhaps some psychology or sociology books; although, Outliers is so new that I'm not sure if there is anything out there that really relates to the book. I'll think about renaming the Background section, although I like the vagueness of it as "Author" seems to imply that the section is about the Author, and not necessarily about relating the author's background with the book's development. Gary King (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• In Background I would like to see more focus on when/how/where the book was researched/written. I'm not a big fan of the biography aspect of the author
• Look to add a Style and/or Genre section. A comparison to the author's previous writing can be made here. The more neutral descriptions of the book/writing currently in the Reception can be made in the Style section. Genre could explain how it is a popular science book and to what extent it is an autobiography.
• Maybe add a quote box with a sample of the writing. A quote can often illustrate the writing style better than an entire section trying to explain it. --maclean 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)