Talk:The Feast of the Goat
 | The Feast of the Goat 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2008 at the University of British Columbia. Further details are available on the course page. Garethshort, jen.chim, and sunnybeddow thank the FA-Team and WikiProject Novels for their help. Revision summary: 4 February, 2008, 348 revisions, 17 April, 2008. GA status achieved. |
GA review
editPassed
editCongratulations to all involved for your efforts on this article over the past fortnight, I have passed this article. It is of sufficiently broad in coverage, reasonably well-written, and adequately (though not perfectly) verified. I think it has enough in terms of content and breadth to be a strong candidate for featured status, but still does not read perfectly in the WP house style for my perhaps over-sensitive ears. Stricutres of no original research and attribution are more difficult to honour for literary topics where so much of the article consists in interpretation, but this is a surmountable difficulty. I recommend submitting to peer review, and wish you all the best of luck. Regards, Skomorokh 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations all! EyeSerenetalk 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help everyone. What a relief! Garethshort (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional comments
editArticle is mostly there, though there are a few minor issues that remain and should be fixed.
- A couple of manual of style issues; some unnecessary bold text in paragraphs, some dates need to be properly formatted and wiki-linked, etc. I would recommend a good copyedit by an editor that is familiar with the manual of style.
- The lead section is very long. See if you can shorten it a bit, keeping it to a good summary of the article.
Other than that, the article is very good. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality
editSomeone continues to make biased edits to the article, from a markedly anti-authoritarian standpoint. If we are to be a neutral platform, then we cannot demonize all governmental forms, whether or not we agree with them. BlauGraf (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf
- This is not an accurate description of what has transpired, as a quick glance at the article's history will show. If you feel that the form of government known as dictatorship is unfairly maligned on Wikipedia, you're unlikely to find many sympathetic ears, but that is entirely beside the point here. This article describes the book and reviews of the book. In any case I've now supplied a reference and given the statement proper framing. Generalrelative (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Whether the form of government is proper is irrelevant, and no sympathetic ear is required, as we are NEUTRAL here - sympathy is irrelevant. We are either neutral, or we are not. The framing is appreciative. BlauGraf (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf
- You appear to be arguing for neutrality not WP:Neutral. WP neutrally reflects what is published in reliable sources. I doubt you'll find many reliable sources praising authoritarianism. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Whether the form of government is proper is irrelevant, and no sympathetic ear is required, as we are NEUTRAL here - sympathy is irrelevant. We are either neutral, or we are not. The framing is appreciative. BlauGraf (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf
- I am referencing neutrality itself, which is what we are supposed to be advocating here, no? If not, then please direct me to that page, because I was under the impression that wiki was a neutral platform, not one run only by and for the american/democratic way of life. BlauGraf (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf
- Sorry you are mistaken, Wikipedia neutrality reflects what reliable sources have published not absolute neutrality. I suggest reading WP:neutral, WP: reliable sources, and WP:verifiability. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- WP:due and WP:false balance might be useful, they're part of WP:neutral but particularly apropos. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry you are mistaken, Wikipedia neutrality reflects what reliable sources have published not absolute neutrality. I suggest reading WP:neutral, WP: reliable sources, and WP:verifiability. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)