Wikipedia:Peer review/The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H./archive1

The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA and I would like to take it to FAC. I'd appreciate it if anyone has any feedback or suggestions.

Thanks, —Bruce1ee^talk 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dig deeper

I've made some edits to the lead, there was a lot of specifics and quotes that are good for later discussion but not desirable for the lead. I also reorganized it to keep similar thoughts together in a paragraph, it was a little scattered.

I identified a broken link.

Can you clarify the comment "...but also about the horrific events that took place in countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, El Salvador and Burundi". Does the book address these issues? Overall, it looks pretty good; a good candidate for a GA or FA. Dig Deeper (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up this review, and thanks for your edits, which I think have improved the article. Just one small point regarding the trimming of the lead: I feel that it should mention the reception that the book received. According to WP:LEAD, it should summarise the important parts of the article, and I believe that the book's mixed reception is important enough to feature there.

To answer your question about the "events that took place in countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, El Salvador and Burundi", the book doesn't address those issues, they are points made by Steiner in a New York Times interview.

I've fixed the dead link – when I last ran Checklinks a few months ago, there weren't any errors, and besides, I thought that HighBeam links never die. The archived copy is only a preview of the HighBeam article, but I do have an offline copy of it when it was still alive. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help. The word controversy or controversial is mentioned 3 times in the lead. If you were keen to add more, I would be reluctant to add quotes, as they can be distracting in the lead. Not a MOS or guideline, just my opinion. Also, I'm not sure there is much of a difference between Reception & Criticism. The text under each subheading is very similar. Consider combining the 2 (maybe into "Reception and criticism"?).Dig Deeper (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've replaced the last occurrence of "controversy" with "heated debates it generated" in the lead. I'd like to reintroduce some of the book's reception into the lead, but I'll keep quoting to a minimum. Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by the "difference between Reception & Criticism" – there is no "Criticism" section. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead a bit and reintroduced the book's reception, which as I said above, I feel is missing. Thanks for your edits and suggestions – they've been very helpful. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)