Talk:Stephen Law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Stephen Law is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}} |
[edit] GA status
Im sorry, but this article doesn't meet the standards of WP:WIAGA. There appear to be either no references, they only mention vaugly areas where Stephan might reside near, or they are in the external links section, which doesn't tell me or any other reader whether information is being used from those links in the article. The article also either does not seem to be broad or it is misfocused, I do not understand why those two books alone were chosen to summarize, or why the detailed explanations are not more approrpiate for separate articles; the list of chapters in the first one seems superfluous and I don't think i've ever seen articles list book chapters before. I also think that there must surely be more on Stephan's personal life than 2 sentences, and the introduction does not summarize the article since it does not mention the books, (which seem to make up most of the article's content), thusly failing the MoS and WP:LEAD. I also think a case could be made overall that the article doesn't even assert this person's notability; publishing books is all well and good for notability in some ways, but the article doesn't seem to show whether or not any of these books were ever popular or widely recognized for anything or by anyone. While that doesn't have to do with GA criteria, I think it's something important to note nonetheless. The article also seems to have several bits of odd POV insertion, most obviously in the book summary sections, with sentences like "The aim of the book is to expose the flawes in arguments calling for a return to authoritarian moral education, as well as to show that not all moral viewpoints are equal. A defense of the philosophically liberal life." It somewhat reads like an advertisement, and the statement that the book somehow exposes flaws in arguments either needs a citation or I don't see why it isn't just random POV insertion. I'm afraid I just can't see a case for this to be a good article in its present state. Homestarmy 07:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
