Talk:Market Forces
 | Market Forces 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I made the change "16:08, 23 August 2006 209.162.236.212, Expanded the description of the novel and removed the stub marker." But my login had timed out when I hit save. --Andrew Sullivan Cant 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Market Forces/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello,
I am delighted to be reviewing this article. On a first reading it looks quite good; I'm looking forward to perusing it in the next few days. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk · contribs) 04:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Lead section Consists of mostly plot summary. The second paragraph, about reception and interpretation of the book, should be expanded.
- Balanced out the lead better: [1] maclean (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Background It's initially a little confusing about whether Market Forces is a part of the trilogy. Perhaps the third installment could be named, stating that it is the Mr Morgan's fourth novel?
- How's this? [2] maclean (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Style and themes the word "extrapolated" is repeated once too often.
The plot synopsis is a little too long.
- Reduced [4] maclean (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The article can be considered stable. Editing history shows solid improvement by a single editor and no content disputes.
Images low resolution book cover used in the infobox is the only illustration. Meets non-free content use guidelines, licence correctly filled out.
Neutrality the article contains criticism as well as praise and analysis. Good variety of references used.
Great work. I'm delighted to promote this article to "Good Article" status. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for reading and evaluating the article. maclean (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
This book is a piece of shit
editI know it's not very NPOV, but seriously. The protagonist is irredeemable, the extrapolation of out-of-control free market capitalism is hamfisted (and I'm practically a communist). The prose is passable, I suppose is a fair thing to say. Fuck this book. 80.71.135.96 (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
But, hold on. Why not tell us how you really feel?193.62.111.10 (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)