Talk:Dyer Lum/GA1

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mostly very well-written, the prose was a pleasure to read. However, there are some Manual of Style issues. Block-quote formatting should not be used for quotes that are less than four lines or not multiple paragraphs. The currently inappropriate quotations need expanding or simple removal.

2. Factually accurate?: The application of inline citations is perfect, nice work. However, the article makes extensive use of a reference (number 8) to a blog. Blogs are disallowed as self-published sources. There is a note that insists it is an "article", but to be an article it must be published somewhere other than in the blog. I do not see any reference to this in the link. According to the directives of WP:SPS, this source can only be allowed if "...produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I see reference to one book he authored, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. Unfortunately, as a product of the self-publishing and print on demand company BookSurge, this work is also considered a self-published work. The bottom line here seems to be that this source is completely inappropriate to use. It needs to be removed and replaced.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all the major points sufficiently for GA status.

4. Neutral point of view?: Covers all signifcant POVs with fair treatment.

5. Article stability? Not the subject of future events or edit wars.

6. Images?: Accounted for with proper license tags where present.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky ^Talk 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

First of all, thank you for going to the trouble of reviewing the article so thoroughly. I have a few points to make on your objections, which I include below. Skomorokh ^incite 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of blockquotes

There is only one block quote in the article, at the end of the Thought section, six and a half lines long in my browser. WP:MOSQUOTE states that block quotes should be used when quotes are four lines long or longer. Am I missing something here? Is it the Template:epigraphs you take issues with? They seem appropriately short pull-quotes. If you could please clarify, I'm sure we can solve this, thanks. Skomorokh ^incite 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is the epigraph quotes at the beginning of each section. It is my understanding of MOS that whatever the template, they qualify as block quoting. If you can show me a guideline specifically for the epigraph template that contradicts this, I'd be happy to retract the request. However, there may be a way to include short pull quotes without contradicting MOSQUOTE. Let me look around. I just remembered the definition of epigraph. Duh. Those are fine. VanTucky ^Talk 20:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, I was worried there for a second that I'm not using them appropriately; I've been sprinkling them liberally throughout the FA-aspirant William Gibson article. Skomorokh ^incite 11:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of self-published source

The Carson reference is central to the article, comprising most of the Thought section, and removing it would greatly reduce its quality I fear. Kevin A. Carson is the foremost current mutualist thinker, and the book you mentioned achieved unprecedented attention for a mutualist work, warranting an entire issue of critical review from the Journal of Libertarian Studies, including articles by Roderick Long, Robert P. Murphy and Walter Block,[1] and has been separately reviewed by George Reisman.[2][3]

Carson's work in the relevant field has previously been published on multiple occasions in independent, third party publications such as Libertarian Alliance,[4], [5], and the Journal of Libertarian Studies,[6] thus qualifying him under WP:SPS. Skomorokh ^incite 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work, I wasn't able to find any of that work in my search. Glad we could resolve that he's reliable for use in this article. However, the book is still a self-published source, whatever accolades it acquired. I would be careful in using it in the future. VanTucky ^Talk 20:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we resolved all the issues I brought up sufficiently. I'll pass the article shortly. Thanks for your thorough response! VanTucky ^Talk 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A pleasure to work with you. Skomorokh ^incite 11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already reached agreement. If User:Libertatia has time you might want to talk with him. Jacob Haller 18:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the relevance. Please explain (not that I'm unwilling to help...) VanTucky ^Talk 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)