Talk:Think Big and Kick Ass/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 15:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Further reading" section uses Harvard anchors, but the citations are not set up to point to them. If this is just further reading, and the books are not cited, use "ref=none" to disable the Harvard anchors.
Trump was a businessman when the book was written, but it's odd to refer to him only in that way in the lead.
writing his business partner gave: clumsy; perhaps "and says that his".
Is a rating of the cover of the book really worth putting in the lead?
The summary section needs some copyediting; the sentence structures are repetitive and there are too many quotes; some of this material needs to be paraphrased. There are a lot of variations on "Trump wrote", "Trump recalls", and so on; these need to flow a little better. And is the tense present ("Trump reflects") or past ("Trump wrote")? It should be consistent.
What's the point of mentioning Must Read Summaries if we don't say what they said about it?
The reception section spends much more time on the negative reviews; is this a fair reflection of the coverage it received?
A couple of the reviews seem to come from very minor sources; Vanguard, for example, or The Washington Free Beacon. Are there no more reviews from major organizations?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor, are you planning to work on this? If not I'll fail the article in another week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I've addressed some of the points you raised. I plan to address the less-specific issues in the summary and reference sections later today. ~~I need more guidance on the Harvard anchors before I can correct them. I have never used them myself, and I know nothing about them.~~ I removed the further reading section. All three items were used as references and/or linked from the body. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for taking this on. Just let me know when you're ready for me to look through it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I've rewritten the summary and reception sections to use fewer quotes. I also added dates for the reviews to the prose. Most of the commentary for the book was published during Trump's candidacy or after his election, which may explain the negative bent. Most of the coverage I can find pre-2012 is already in the article. Please let me know if you have any other concerns.

Also, I'm willing to look at Sagecandor's other pending GANs, if you don't mind holding them open for a while longer. I'm not sure how long it will take me to get through them. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good; I'll go ahead and promote. Yes, I'll hold off on the others till you've had a chance to look at them. There's one more of Sagecandor's not yet under review: Trump Revealed -- are you interested in looking at that too? I would guess the edits needed are very similar. If you take a look at it and clean it up, let me know and I'll review it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]