Talk:Bodyguard of Lies/GA2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 13:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Will aim to get to this within the week at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Toolbox checks -- No dab or EL issues.

Prose/content

  • I think I get the meaning of "The British and American governments resisted Brown's work on Bodyguard of Lies"; might it be better expressed as "The British and American governments resisted Brown's attempts to research [or "publish"] Bodyguard of Lies"?
    • done, I think
  • I feel there's inconsistency between the lead, which says "The material in the book is predominantly based on American records that had been recently declassified and obtained via Freedom of Information requests" and the Background section, which says "Brown says that most of the book was written before he was able to access the latter", i.e. American records.
    • Done, I think
  • Again in Background "His work was resisted by the British and American governments" might sound better as "His attempts at research were resisted by the British and American governments" or some such.
    • done, I think
  • In Synopsis, "Bodyguard of Lies narrates Allied deception strategy on the Western Front for the years of 1943 and 1944." repeats almost word for word something in the previous Background section -- either the phrasing should be altered or better still we should say something new and/or more detailed.
    • Now removed
  • Related to above, I would've thought such a long book deserved a bigger synopsis, say another paragraph or two.
    • Expanded!
  • Can we get a better idea of the "novel thesis: a thesis which, in my opinion, is quite wrong" of which Trevor-Roper speaks?
    • I've expanded this
  • "backhandedly describing the book..." -- can you clarify for me exactly what you mean by "backhandedly" here? I'm not sure it's how I'd understand the usage and, in any case, it could be seen as OR since the source for the entire sentence is the review itself; might be better just to report the description without such elaboration...
    • Removed

Referencing

  • If you have retrieval dates for two of your online sources, should you have one for Bowen as well?
    • Removed both, not a fan of having them
  • Do we have a page number for The Globe and Mail ref?
    • Sorry, no. :(

Structure -- Article appears sensibly laid out.

Supporting materials -- Infobox and image licensing appear fine (pic could use alt text but not a strict requirement). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review! Only need to expand the synopsis... can you give me a couple of days over the weekend to expand that? --Errant (chat!) 22:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • No hurry, let me know when done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
      • @Ian Rose: I've expanded the synopsis, see what you think! Is it enough detail? --Errant (chat!) 11:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Works for me -- tweaked a few things and now ready to pass as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)