Talk:David Bentley Hart/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Helloheart (talk · contribs) 00:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

What I'm thinking[edit]

I'll add more to this as I go:

I see a sentence a lot to or to the affect of "See Hart's bibliography article for a full list" (I see it in the "Academic Career" section, and in "Literary Writing") and I see "See the main book article for more details." when it's talking about Roland in Moonlight. Do we really need this in the text?
I see "Hart's greatest praise" in the Influences and key ideas section. Do we need "Greatest" used?
Also in the Influences and key ideas section, it says "Hart's greatest praise, however, goes to Sergei Bulgakov who Hart has several times called the greatest theologian of the twentieth century". Should "the greatest theologian of the twentieth century" go in quotes?
"Hart also maintains a popular subscription periodical" – Exactly how popular?

‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Helloheart: Others following this article would be most welcome to respond as well of course, but I'll share my thoughts on these points so far (and I'm glad to make edits or have you do so--whichever sounds best to you):

I agree that it would be good to cut the "See Hart's bibliography..." and "See the main book article" notes and links and to simply keep the standard "Main article" bibliography link in place at the top of the "Literary writing" section (and perhaps also in the "See also" section at the bottom as it is).
I agree that "greatest" is a fluffy word and good to cut.
I agree that "the greatest theologian of the twentieth century" being in quotes would clarify the point there about Sergei Bulgakov, and that is the phrase that Hart has repeated. I should probably find one more reference as an example (and maybe drop timestamp notes into the references cited there).
Regarding Hart's Leaves in the Wind subscription periodical, it might be better to call it a "subscription newsletter" than a "subscription periodical" (as that is the terms used by the Substack tool itself I think). As for the popularity, the subscription numbers are not public, but Hart has joked about how successful it has been for him personally as part of his income as a writer. What data is available publicly are not big numbers, so the word "popular" is not justified. There are eight videos posted to the YouTube channel of the same name that is connected to the newsletter, and the most-watch video there is at 8.5K views. His essays on the subscription service itself sometimes get just over 100 "comments" and about the same number of "hearts" from readers (on the high side). So I'd just drop the word popular and say: "Hart also maintains a subscription newsletter..."

Jjhake (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Helloheart: I've made all of the changes above as I hate to see improvements go undone. If this is unhelpful with the processes and protocols of a GA review, please let me know, and I will not do it next time. Thank you. Jjhake (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjhake, thanks, that looks good so far. I'll keep looking and tell you if I see anything else. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 03:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good![edit]

It's well written (I learned a lot), follows the MoS. I double-checked the MoS for this review, and it was good except for a few problems which were solved. It, overall, is worthy of being a good article. Good job, @Jjhake. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this review and the improvements! Jjhake (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]