Wikipedia:Peer review/Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass/archive1

Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am seeking the advice of more experienced editors on what else I can do to improve this article so that it will be successful when going through a review for FA class. The article was recently upgraded to GA class after a successful GA Review, which you can find here.

Please do note that I have done a search on the internet multiple times for sources and, as far as I know, the sources in the article are all that is available online. If you can offer other sources for inclusion, I would appreciate it. But please do not just ask in your review for more sources to be added, as I do not know where any more are to be found.

Thanks, Silver seren^C 01:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few more sources:

Daniel, Lillian. The Christian Century, 3/27/2002, Vol. 119 Issue 7, p36
Hollander, Paul. Partisan Review, Winter2003, Vol. 70 Issue 1, p142
Nelson, Kathleen. The Lancet, 8/10/2002, Vol. 360 Issue 9331, p496

If you would like me to forward you copies of these, send me an email. --maclean (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadads

I am doing a really quick read right now and will do something more substantial at the end of the week. (I have the whole of next week off, so I should be really productive online.), Sadads (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content section edit

"Each chapter is an individual essay that was published by itself." I think I know what this means, but can you clarify what "published by itself" means. Were they published in journals? Were they all previously published before the publication? The wording doesn't seem very clear in general, Sadads (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think i've clarified this. Let me know if it's still confusing. Silver seren^C 05:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a little more discussion of the structure of arguements in the content section, or a fuller understanding of why the conclusions which are in this section are in fact there would be useful. Remember, summaries of content don't need to be cited by outside sources, as long as it is free of interpretation of content, Sadads (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For example I don't know what "All of these issues formed because the "intellectual foundation...makes a permanent underclass possible".[14]" that sentence means,especially in relationship to the three previous sentences, Sadads (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reworded things a bit. Let me know if that's better. Silver seren^C 06:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: Please do not use second and third levels on the review page, as they interfere with the transclusion. Fourth-level headings are fine. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]