Talk:The Salt Path

The Salt Path 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.
Review: February 15, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Bad Investment

Is this accurate? From Raynor Winn's own description in The Salt Path it would appear that the couple were defrauded by an old friend, and so they argued before the courts. The courts did not agree, but it still seems harsh to describe their financial loss being to due to a bad investment. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content is reliably sourced to the BBC have you got another secondary source that says otherwise? Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt the BBC liked to term it as such, but according to Winn's own account in The Salt Path, they thought they were doing a friend a favour by guaranteeing a loan. Because other things were happening in their lives, i.e. Moth's illness, they were late with filing objections to the court when the friend defaulted. This is clearly explained in the book. I refer you to the book. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the book, but we would need a secondary source to support this, not her own book. I'll see what I can find. Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just read the book; it was an investment in the friend’s business, not a loan. They were presumably prepared to lose the investment, but had not realised they would be liable for the debts when the business failed. Laplarks (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2025 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Salt Path/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 21:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I'll get to any comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Done.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Done.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Spot-checks done, but will show my work below.

B. 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):
Route section can easily cite the map in the book or a secondary source at the end of the paragraph. Done.

C. It contains no original research:
No OR found.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No copyvio. Extensive quoting could be perceived as an issue. Will discuss.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Main aspects addressed.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Focused.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Neutral.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Stable.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images are appropriately tagged.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Relevant. Captions are good.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Feedback

Lead

Resolved

I think it would be helpful to expand the lead to mention the region where the story takes place (South West England) and the South West Coast Path that the couple explore.
- Missed this one, now done.

I realize you mention that it won awards in the lead, and perhaps this is ideal, but the critical reception was unanimously positive. I wonder if you are at all interested in representing this reception in the lead? I also notice there's a lot of reviews and critics that aren't mentioned, but that's up to editorial preference of course.
- Added to lead, and another review.

Along these lines, it might be helpful to mention that the book inspired social workers in their professional work as a form of education about homelessness in England. Of course, you might need a new section on analysis, or homelessness in England or social work to put this in the lead in the first place. See Sharman, D. (2021). "Cuthill, Fiona (2019). Policy and Practice in Health and Social Care Number Twenty Seven/Winn, R (2018) The Salt Path'. Social Work Education. 41 (5): 1063–1065. It's a bit of a confusing read because Sharman compares and contrasts Winn's boots on the ground, homeless account with the academic perspective of Cuthill 2019, so it's hard to follow, but there is one takeaway you might find useful. This almost goes into the weeds, but stays just outside of it: Sharman notes that a clinical psychologist (Adam Burley) believes that it is our interconnection, our dependence on others in our social network that keeps us healthy, and the system is setup contrary to this, not just on the level of the government, but also in the psychological makeup of its people. Towards this end, Sharman notes that the Winn's were "a middle class, middle-aged couple who lost everything following a poor financial decision involving a friend who exploited them and they 'chose' not to be dependent on friends, family and the system. Dr Burley talks about a system that is 'phobic' about developing dependency, actively striving to make people independent and in so doing continues their isolation and inability to function." Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.
  - Made some changes due to the confusing nature of Sharman's writing. I read it four times and even consulted Cuthill 2019 (Chapter 7, Chapter 8) only to discover that Sharman was recommending Cuthill not Winn to her students. I then rewrote it for accuracy.

Mention and link to film adaptation in lead? This article is going to get a lot of people searching for the film. Should there be a hatnote?
- Mentioned and linked, so no need for a hat as well.
I closed out this section and complete but I might recommend some adjustments later. As for the review, the current version is fine.

Infobox

Resolved

Infobox looks fine although the first edition OCLC 1020281909 shows that it uses the blurb-free cover that I mentioned below. If you want me to upload that cover instead, I can, just let me know.

Found the original version here. Shrunk it down to non-free size of 249 x 401. Didn't upload it because I'm deferring to your preference.

I really don't mind as the versions are so similar.

I will upload it then, as first edition covers are preferred.

Done.[1] If you clear your cache, you'll see it. I think it's quite the improvement.

Book

Narrative

Resolved

I think you are clearly an expert at executing a succint synopsis using the concept of an economy of words and an optimized and efficient use of a narrative. That's impressive. But, I also think that this might do a slight disservice to the book itself, given that it has a brief prologue and six major parts composed of 21 chapters. I'm not entirely convinced 140 words does this justice, but I will think on it.
- That's very kind of you. Added a bit more.
  - 376 words 2,106 characters. If there's anything like perfection, this is it. Good work.

Route

Resolved

I duplicated the {{sfn|Winn|2019|loc=Front matter}} source here. However, and it probably doesn't matter, there are actual page numbers. It's pp. x–xi. Since "Front matter" works just as well, just wanted to note it here.

Publication

Reception

Awards

Resolved

You're missing italics in the first instance of the book title.
- Added. You're welcome to fix anything small like this as it's quicker than writing a description of it!
  - I apologize if I'm making this difficult. I tend to avoid editing the articles of expert editors, while editing those that genuinely need help, often due to newbie issues or language difficulties. You don't fall into those categories, so I will probably be hands off unless there are egregious errors. I realize that my style can lead to some confusion.
    - No worries.
This section is fine so I'm closing it out. I realize that your use of quotes and commas differs from my own, so I won't be commenting on those two things here. I tend to chop down the quotes more than you by eliminating extraneous wording.

Adaptations

References

Spot-checks (random)

Resolved

15
- Quote checks out but it's probably a good idea to revisit this because the material is slightly confusing for those who haven't read the source and the use of the quote includes this confusing material. I will have more to say about this in a bit.
9
- Dead link. Add the archive link. Might be a good idea to run this tool
16
2
- This is fine, but the "boundary between life and death" bit refers to a quote by Winn herself, so you may want rephrase or figure out another way. Obviously, you are trying to avoid quoting twice in the same sentence, and I would encourage you to cut down on quotes and paraphrase as much as you can.
18
- I would format this as Schoettle, Jane (2024). "The Salt Path". Special Presentations. Toronto International Film Festival. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
14

Sources

Resolved

Article is looking good. Not sure what the sources section is all about. I see you use Winn 2018 in the References section. It looks like 978-0-2413-4964-9 is the original hardback and 978-1-405-93718-4 is the paperback published a year later in 2019. Because the OCLC information often has errors, I decided to look inside the book itself. Sure enough, this is the 2019 edition. So it looks like you'll want to change 2018 to 2019 in the second instance. I'm still not sure why you have both listed as "sources" since you only use one, but it's fine by me.
- Retitled to 'Bibliography' and tweaked dates.

External links

Resolved

I don't have a problem with this video link, and I really enjoyed watching it. But I wonder if others think it should be merged into the article somehow. I think it's fine where it is, but there is more and more a movement (or house style) to cut down on external links. Just FYI.
- Well, I'd cheerfully fold it into Reception but the item is about the walk not the book, so it'd be an uneasy fit within the text. 1 is certainly a small number of ext links.
  - Now in 'Impact' as everything else is!

Images

Resolved

File:The Salt Path.jpg: Image is fine, tagged appropriately as non-free, but it's not clear if it is the original. When you click on it from the source page, another cover image comes up, and it's quite nice. This could be the newer version or the older, original cover, I don't know.

Based on the BBC external link that shows the original hardcover, it is based on the original image, but the original doesn't have the blurbs. Just wanted to check as the new edition has a different cover.

Yes, it's fine.

Both the book and the BBC video show maps of the South West Coast Path. That article doesn't exactly have a great map for use, but I think this subject could benefit from one. It would have to be a bespoke map in some respects, and you would also need to create space for it, which you are lacking. Just something to think about as it could provide an illustration for the reader unfamiliar with the journey.

Yes, in a perfect world the Path article would have a usable map. I may well create a map for this article sometime, but probably after this GAN as there is quite a bit of work involved.

Just found this and this. It's not ideal, but there may be something there.

I could create this somewhat easily, but I need to find a base map to work from.

That would be lovely.

Found one.

Closest I could get and still keep it in frame

Other

Resolved

First thing I thought was how does this book fit into Raynor's other work? (The Wild Silence, Landlines) Are they thematically connected? (prequel, sequel) Obviously, you can only go where the sources take you.
- Well, this was the first and (who knows) maybe best. Those other books (2020, 2022) walk a bit more... I enjoyed The Wild Silence, mainly (spoiler alert) for one thunderbolt moment of love. Obviously the contemporary reviews are silent on the later books. If I see a suitable source I'll add something. Meanwhile, I've added a 'See also' with a brief description of The Wild Silence. In a way both prequel and sequel. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per the next item, I've folded the followup books into 'Impact'.

Followup, activism, charity work

Resolved

Looks like there's quite a bit of followup: See Lytton, Charlotte (28 August 2022). "Homeless, sick and facing bankruptcy: What became of The Salt Path couple" The Telegraph; BBC and Parker, Fiona (5 April 2024) "Salt Path couple take on 120 mile walk for charity". Daily Telegraph. p. 11.
- These sources connect Landlines to the original work.
  - Added an 'Impact' section. This does shade off into their life generally (they did another walk to publicise...) so I've been brief.

Journey

Resolved

This is a list of the 630-mile (1,010 km) journey taken along the South West Coast Path by Raynor Winn and her husband Moth. Each place represents an area they visited or where they pitched camp. The path starts at Minehead in Somerset, runs along the coastline of Exmoor, North Devon and Cornwall to Land's End, then continues east following the South Cornish, Devon and Dorset coastline before ending at Poole Harbour.

Note, I copied the text in green (in part) from Wikivoyage, so if you use it, you might want to rewrite it if necessary. That is if you decide to use any of this. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've made a 'Route' section for the map.
- On graphics formats, PNG is marginally ahead of JPG; the big improvement is SVG which makes maps wholly scalable with no fuzziness. I might do one sometime. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I dabbled in SVG with Inkscape a while back. Never got very far as I got distracted with other things. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Might give it another look. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not important here, the nap works well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You reallly thought I was going to do it, didn't you? Hah. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts

I would like to close this out, but the extensive quoting is giving me pause. I would like to see if it is possible to decrease the quoting and increase the paraphrasing. I am taking a look now and will make some suggestions if need be.
- Not really. There is a single quote box from the entire novel, giving a tiny glimpse of the writing style and content. There are short quotations in Reception to allow the commentators to speak briefly in their own voices; that doesn't work in paraphrase as everything gets reduced to uniform blandness. There is one quote in Awards, again enabling the reader to hear the judges' voices, however briefly. Finally in Impact, there are two quotes from Sharman, and I agree the first of these can be paraphrased: done. The second one concisely summarizes Burley's argument and conveys the clinical psychology tone and attitude; I doubt we can do better and there's frankly no reason to try.
  - I'll chalk up our differences in opinion to that of style and will close this out and pass it. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2025 (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.