Talk:Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ❤History Theorist❤ 00:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs) 18:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: HistoryTheorist (talk · contribs) 20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn: please check your talk page. I'm very interested in reviewing, but I cannot go too quickly due to real life. If you just want someone to get the review done who will be patient about response time, I'd be happy to pick this one up. ❤History Theorist❤ 20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Evaluation

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1st Pass: Basic Formatting and GAN Instructions

Y follows basic citation instructions regarding background of the book (all aspects) but does not use in-line citations in Synopsis
Y is a stable article not undergoing major dispute
Y images are properly sourced and labelled
Y article takes a neutral and detached tone without promoting a specific angle
Y proper basic orthographical conventions and standard formatting conventions have been followed
Bottom Line: Article is worth reviewing at a deeper level, passes evaluation for stability, image fields. Sourcework and prose are eligible for a deeper review.

2nd Pass: A slightly more advanced dive into Tone, Prose, Citations

Synopsis is a neutral, detached summary of the contents of the book. States objective facts and uses Hawley's words when appropriate. However, it does not appropriate his logic as its own. Makes appropriate connections the references Hawley uses.
- Other aspects do a good job keeping a neutral, detached tone. Gives adequate weight to cultural critics, as Hawley has communicated controversial ideas, but doesn't take the perspective of a cultural critic.
Takes a balanced view of background and context of Hawley's writing, using more detached sources to take a detached view. Is based on object fact, not political opinion.
[caution: an overexplanation] Uses a wide variety of sources, from mildly contrarian Christian progressive-conservative magazines which provide me with a bit of snark for every perspective to Hawley's own books, progressive sources, primary sources, etc. Also cites from critics of critics (see Daily Beast.) To maintain a balanced view, sources of alternate perspectives from Hawley's were considered but not taken too seriously.
Additional information needed I want to be sure you aren't concerned about any of the context here. I included Christianity Today because, given the subject of the book, it felt like relevent background. However, it (and additional previous work) was previously removed when this article was a draft (see this archived discussion), and I only just recently pit it back in. I would understand an argument that its inclusion is not relevant. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - Sorry. I read a lot of Christianity Today, one of the best religious magazines out there. Didn't mean to take it too far. Politics make my head hurt and I feel that for a Christian magazine, they give the most level-headed and even-tempered coverage. I believe thoughtfulness pays dividends regardless of religious/political leanings. They are currently in a stage of maturation and growth, and I feel like that if they embrace that, they'll do great things, even for atheists and other non-Christians. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidenote: you are doing a good job with political articles, I'd definitely encourage you to do more hard things. If you want a hard GA review, Thebiguglyalien has a Melania Trump article to review. I would do it, but it's too much for me to conquer by myself.

Suggestions:
- I would recommend consolidating the first micro paragraph of the background section with the second. My reasoning is that it kind of looks weird to have a micro paragraph with no citation, even though all verification is provided in ref 2. There are other ways to deal with the issue, but that is my suggestion.
  Done – Special:Diff/1245542162. I presumed the statements would be basic enough (and proven elsewhere in the Wiki such at the author's page) to meet WP:BLUE but happy to consolidate because, as you said, these are already easily verifiable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is technically optional, but leaving a link to a brief synopsis somewhere in the article might be beneficial. I haven't gone in and dug deep yet, so perhaps I missed something. Will figure out formatting later.
  In progress I've reviewed MOS:PLOTSOURCE and it looks like I'll need citations for quotes. Unfortunatly, I've already returned my copy to the library. I can get the audiobook or kindle version, but its quite a long wait for the hardcover again. I may have to look into buying a used copy. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, I can help if needed. I live in an information-rich place and am willing to help you if you please tell me which book you read. ❤History Theorist❤ 00:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done – Special:Diff/1245704556. I believe I've adequately cited the quotations and specific arguments (I used an ebook but I still believe the pages are correct when used, as I was able to verify the locations of the text using the index in the back of the book) but let me know if you think there are still some issues. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom Line
- Article is ready for an even deeper dive into integrating facts, logic, and (yes Mr. Shapiro,) some feelings too. Is a good ironic read whose contents are only interpreted through a person's cultural leanings. Great for the upcoming election holidays where celebrations culminate in mayhem at a political level never seen before and end with the grand divisive political union!
- Passing: neutrality, focus, broadness, reliablesources

Notes and Overall Evaluation

I'm not done with this yet, but this has been the best Wikipedia article I've seen in awhile. Your skill for being politically and emotionally detached (you are basically another darn dirty Canadian like my journalism teacher) is so impressive that it's funny to anybody with enough political literacy but not enough to actually care. I think that might give me the motivation to finish up in a couple days and do some other Wikipedia work. Is definitely featured article material and I'd inquire about getting it promoted. Still expecting response by September 22nd, so I'll be patient still. ❤History Theorist❤ 02:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your kind words; I appreciate your encouragement to strive for FA and while that's definitely the WP:PURPOSE of the project and any of my work, it felt a little daunting so I thought I'd run the gauntlet with a GAN first to receive feedback! I will begin to work through your points above in a point by point to address and implement your suggestions. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby Cohn: I realize I grade GAs with slightly higher standards, so come take a look and give me some feedback. I don't see any issues with this and I think that this could be top-tier FA material with some more feedback from more experienced users. Go for gold! Will definitely help if needed. (If you want, I have an East German progressive-conservative Christian biography article for you to review. It's a nice antidote to the Trump-Harris circus in the USA. Even if it fails, I need somebody to tell me where I am at.) ❤History Theorist❤ 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to take a look at the article, and with the recent changes approving good article review circles (disclaimer: I had only recently become aware of this change, and I am not familiar with the specifics of the page in depth) I think we could find another to include in a review so that the QPQ is above-board. It is my goal to get involved in reviewing GANs once I get my first one approved. GAN is something I'm eager to contribute to more. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty! I'm afraid of the GARC but I have been secretly watching. If you ever want to do a team-review for Melania Trump, I love Slovenia and would do personal and you would do political side, I think TBUH might appreciate that. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[warning: election season is coming!] However, I understand that you might not want to, lest you become deeply attached to the poisonous venom which is modern American politics. There's a reason I had to reduce my activity level at Wikipedia. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Pass: Double-check any unassessed elements

Copyvio is alright, but I think you should reword "vying to run against Hawley in 2024". It doesn't sound very encyclopedic.
Checking for original research:
- Y ref 21 checks out (Washington Post)
- Y ref 17 checks out (Daily Beast)
- Y ref 3 checks out (Kansas City Star)
- Y ref 4 checks out (Kansas City Star)
- Could you can explain why writing for Christianity Today is important to Hawley's Christian Nationalist brand? I think it is fair given the sources used and his general reputation to call Hawley a Christian Nationalist, but CT has been trying to disavow itself from Christian Nationalism^[a], especially this past year. However, their editorial board does allow folks like Hawley to write an opinion column, so maybe briefly explain the column he wrote. If it is not relevant, I would recommend removing.
  - - Perhaps shortly explaining how Hawley has been a Christian nationalist in the past, CT or not, would be a better approach.
      It was more a sense of two separate ideas, both unrelated to each other but background to Manhood; as it relates to his previous description of his beliefs (CN) and then his previous work where he's authored things on the topics of christianity in CT. If the confusion is coming from the idea that their proximitey in the article suggests they are related, maybe I separate them for clarity to our readers? Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Done — Special:Diff/1247037389. I reread your recommendation @HistoryTheorist and you're totally right: a short but further explanation on the CN views gives better background, and I re-ordered the statements so as to not suggest to our readers that the CN description was a result of his writings in CT. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also another nitpick, but perhaps the Stephen Lyons sentence should be worded more clearly
Done — Special:Diff/1247035517. I've been told in my day-to-day writing that I have a penchant for run-on sentences. I do love dependent clauses. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I love run-on sentences too! Glad to see that someone also writes in an unclear but rhetorically sophisticated way. ❤History Theorist❤ 00:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

footnote

^ (Judge for yourself if CT is doing a good job, I have read too much of their publication to clearly say so.)

Final (yes, I mean final) comments

@Bobby Cohn: This review has been a wrap! I'm glad I took a real-life break before finishing this, but it has been an absolute pleasure reading this article. I will pass once you respond intelligently, or else this will devolve into a one-user FAC.

I think it's ready to pass! Here's to your first little green badge. ❤History Theorist❤ 00:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] (Judge for yourself if CT is doing a good job, I have read too much of their publication to clearly say so.)

[a]