Talk:A Short History of Progress

A Short History of Progress has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 20, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Lecture Availability

Keep your eyes open: I found the second lecture was available from the Ideas Canada podcast on www.radio4all.net.

Keep your eyes open as you never know more of the series of five lecture might become available through this service (search on radio4all or subscibe to trhe podcast and please update the links when this occurs... The complete package of five is available commercially from the publisher and CBC Canada and believe me they are VERY VERY good and certainly well worth the price! (The author has to make a buck after all and deserves to but I am hoping that with the release of the book and now after seemingly an upcoming documentary then the complete series of lectures might become more widely available. I for one will be looking out for the movie - congradulations Ronald Wright!) Mattjs 14:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Done! I updated the article with the Audio CD Lecture details - least I can do since I got mine for nothing. Only thing is I don't have the subtitles for the last three lectures so someone who has the CDs might like to fill them in - the first two come from the Ideas Canada podcast of only the first two that are publicly available! The details of the individual lecture names are interesting and informative and bear in mind that the public Lectures (then the CD's), came before the Book! Mattjs 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is wrong the book was published before the lectures and has been corrected in the article. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually incorrect: the book was published after the Massey Lectures by Anansi Press. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh: glad to see i am the only one taking an interest in this article (means i've got it all to myself). I am going to flesh it out with more details over the next week so please dont bother editing out or reverting any of the current almost "stub" sections. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List

Notes to myself and others:

(A) A little more on precautionary principle before conclusion?... 122.148.173.37 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(B) Have to weave Wright's comments on "elites" into the article... 122.148.173.37 (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(...)

(?) Merge book chapters with synopsis... eventually... mmm... maybe very eventually... 122.148.173.37 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your enhancements – but please next time use the key "show preview" until you think it's done and then use "save page". Thus, you do not create a countless number of versions of the article. These versions make it hard for others to check what has been changed and also each version is stored until eternity at the Wikipedia servers, thus wasting memory space. Thank you in advance --Cyfal (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will do that. But wouldn't it be nice have an archive flush ability? You are right about show preview and I need to use it! But you can happily trash all previous versions of this article as there have been no major deletions or controversies. Regards, 122.148.173.37 (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Short History of Progress/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 20, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I like the writing style, it is readable and comprehensive, as well as succinct and deliberate. The final quote is a tad bit too large in the Synopsis sect, would suggest trimming that down in size.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. I would suggest moving to a Notes/References formatting style.

3. Broad in coverage?: The only thing I would point out is the small Film sect, this could be expanded a bit more to include more details in its production, and reception.

4. Neutral point of view?: Matter-of-fact and neutral tone, yes.

5. Article stability? Upon inspection of talk page and edit history of article, no major issues.

6. Images?: One image used, fair use rationale on image page.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time and interest to review. maclean (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

I haven't had a chance to go through the article in detail (and it needs an edit - some of the english expression is a little stunted) but wouldn't the Background section (on the Author) be more approriate where it belongs on his Biography "Ronald Wright" page as it is needless duplication in my opinion. Perhaps it was included by the editor to garnish well written article brownie points rather than in the interests of Wikipedia as a whole. Although a good idea for the sake of a well rounded article in itself this isnt a literary journal and even novice users should be able to navigate back to the "Ronald Wright" page to check it out. My vote is that any bio components in this section should go. 122.148.41.172 (talk) 122.148.41.172 (talk)

I agree that this information is primarily about the author and is out of place in this article. I also note that the article on Wright is skimpy on details about his life. The section should be moved there and expanded. Sunray (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Background section should answer the question of where the book came from. It didn't emerge out of a vacuum; it is an expression of an author. So the Background section should say who the author is, why he wrote it, what made him qualified to write the book, when in that author's career was this book written, etc. It is all about providing context on where the book came from. maclean (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it is a good idea to identify the origins of the book. I've taken out the autobiographical material that doesn't relate to A Short History of Progress. See what you think. The section could be further expanded to talk about the Massey Lectures, perhaps. I will move the rest of the autobiographical material to the article about Ronald Wright. Sunray (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Massey Lecture information should go into that article unless it is specific to this author/book and not already covered over there. I don't know what the standards are but I have no problem with, for example, re-wikifying "Ronald Wright"'s name for a second time in the Background section or including a link below the section heading to that article. Regards, 122.148.41.172 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on A Short History of Progress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]