Talk:Slavery by Another Name

Going for Good Article status

I'm planning to expand this article over the next few weeks, hopefully bringing it up to GA-quality for a nomination. I don't know how many watchers this has, but any input other users have would be very welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Lumber camp

Thanks for you hard work on this article. I wiki-linked a few things and was not sure exactly what was meant by lumber camp. Was it more logging or sawmill or a combination of both? I linked as logging. Please correct it if I'm wrong. A Softer Answer (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Background block quote

In the Background section of the article in the block quote, there are three quotation marks. As a rule, quotation marks come in pairs. I was about to eliminate the middle mark but I found that it had a line break at that point. Please look at this block quote and correct the marks.A Softer Answer (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slavery by Another Name/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind? :P, comments to follow. ★★RetroLord★★ 23:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a bit! Thanks for taking a look. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

A few points-

Should we have quotation marks around the block quote in the contents section?

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"executive produced" Just "produced"?

• I'm not the original author of that sentence, but I think executive produced is the correct term. The New York Times seems to be willing to use the phrase, at least. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"In 2011, Mark Melvin, an inmate at the Kilby Correctional Facility" Was there any outcome to this lawsuit?

• Alas, can't find one yet. Let me look again in a minute. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like any updates have appeared since Feb 2012, when the case was in its discovery phase. [1] (Google search here) My guess is it was settled out of court and the news didn't find that worth following up on. It's a shame--I'm really curious. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, you may be more aware of the rules in this particular area than I am, but should the ISBN and page count in the infobox be cited?

• Page count probably should be. I think ISBN doesn't need to be, because it self-verifies through the link the infobox creates: [2] (click on any of the "find this book" links). Will correct this in a mo. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Page count  Done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Khazar, ★★RetroLord★★ 23:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Stability, check! Image fair-use, check! Final question, for broadness purposes, are there any revenue figures available for the book or the film? ★★RetroLord★★ 00:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Not that I'm aware of. Book sales figures are notoriously hard to come by unless you pay for access to specialized databases. The film didn't seem to get the wide distribution needed for box office figures at sites like Box Office Mojo. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Okey-Dokey. Will pass this soon, ★★RetroLord★★ 00:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks--this just passed GA before appearing as a DYK! Go go team GAN! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)