Wikipedia:Peer review/Engines of Rebellion/archive1

Engines of Rebellion edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

A recent creation of mine, I'm hoping to get it to GA eventually. I don't feel very comfortable or confident writing about literature and haven't really done so for over a year, so I'd like someone to look this one over before I nominate.

Thanks, Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bdhamilton

This is clear, concise, and well-written. I only have two interconnected thoughts. The first is a suggestion: I think that article would benefit from a "significance" section that clarifies the contribution of this book in the larger context of Civil War history, naval history, and the like. You have a sentence or two addressing that question in the opening paragraph of the Content section, but it feels to me like it would be worth more sustained treatment. This book is very narrow in its focus, so situating it in a larger field is important. The second is a concern: will it even be possible to write a "significance" section using the independent sources that exist? Since the book is published by a university press and has been reviewed in academic journals, it probably meets Wikipedia's notability criteria—but if so, only barely. The fact that the only independent sources you have to go on are very brief reviews—more summaries than serious engagements—makes it difficult to say anything very substantial about the book beyond what it covers. I don't have enough experience on Wikipedia to know, but I wonder if notability will get challenged during a GA review. Hope that gives you something to chew on! —Brian (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdhamilton: - Sorry for the late reply. I've been really busy in RL. I don't think notability is an issue here - the length of the reviews is fairly standard for what I've seen for book reviews in scholarly journals, and there's certainly enough of them to meet WP:NBOOK. When I get a little more time, I'll try to see what I can do about a significant section, although that's often something that requires a bit of time to really solidify in the literature. The book just hasn't really been out long enough to make a lasting impact. Hog Farm _Talk 22:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! That all sounds right. I think you could cobble together a basic significance section just by rearranging material that's already there, and it would help to make the notability of the book clearer to a casual reader. —Brian (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]