Talk:The Rage Against God

Deletion?

I am hardly trying to drum up sales! I'm an anti-theist, and I happen to profoundly disagree with Peter Hitchens about... pretty much everything. Neural (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I need to log off now. I was preparing to build up this page with a lot more detail, but now I don't know whether it is worth potentially wasting my time. I don't see the justification in this trigger-happy approach to slapping deletion tags onto any new pages that appear. Hitchens, like him or not, is a well-known conservative columnist/writer. I am prepared to argue that this new book is noteworthy enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Neural (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not list every book that is published: the standard is explained at WP:Notability (books), and a newly-published book may have difficulty meeting it. Can you show that this one "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", or otherwise meets WP:BK#Criteria? JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Title

My thanks to those who have worked on this ( sceptical editors might note that it has already attracted its first review, by Christopher Howse in the Daily Telegraph -'Taking the God out of Good', Saturday 20th March, p.29, and a mention by the columnist Mary Kenny in the 19th March edition of the 'Catholic Herald', as well as numerous comments on the web. And it was only published a week ago). But the title used here is not in fact the title of the book, in Britain or the USA. In Britain it has no subtitle at all and is 'The Rage Against God' (the US Edition will have the subtitle 'How atheism led me to faith'). I think it would be simpler, and easier for readers to find, if the basic title 'The Rage Against God', common to both editions, were used. I don't know how to amend this, and think it would be better if someone else did. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting about the title -- I wonder why no-one noticed? Have just checked on Amazon UK however and it is indeed simply The Rage Against God. Jprw (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

further reviews and mentions

The book is reviewed in the April issue of Standpoint Magazine by Michael Nazir Ali [1]

And referred to by Simon Hoggart in his Guardian column of 27th March [2]

Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the Standpoint ref but Hoggart's mention isn't substantial enough. I wonder if Michael Gove will be reviewing the book? I seem to remember reading somewhere that he couldn't wait to read it. I suppose it's still early days. At the moment the reception section needs some critical refs for balance. Jprw (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Gove seems to be anticipating The Rage Against God here: "I long to see him take the next stage in his writer's journey and examine, with his unsparing honesty, the rich human reality of the division he believes is now more important than the split between Left and Right — the deeper gulf between the restless progressive and the Christian pessimist. This division, the difference between between Prometheus and St Paul, the chasm that divides Shelley from T. S. Eliot, Lloyd George from Lord Salisbury, is nowhere better encapsulated than in the contrast between Hitchens major and minor. While Peter may feel that the choice between Left and Right needs proper definition, for many of us the choice between Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens is the truly difficult one to make". ([3]) Presumably Gove will get round to reviewing the book at some point, and I'm thinking about mining the above quote to pad out the introduction. Jprw (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I decided to round off the intro with the Gove quote but it may need rewording. Jprw (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Balance

I included the Hoggart link precisely because it is critical, though admittedly fairly brief (bear in mind that mentions of this kind in prominent columns have more impact than lengthy back-of-the-book reviews). But I'm sure it won't be the last such.

There's now a second reference in the 'Daily Telegraph' of 30th March 2010: [4] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be difficult to justify referring to Hoggart's short paragraph. But why hasn't there been made a full-blown, vituperative attack from The Guardian, I wonder? Jprw (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the Moore ref -- it's a good high profile ref but still positive. Maybe The Observer will pitch in this weekend with a scathing attack, and do something to restore a semblance of balance? Jprw (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

GA/FA status

I'm attempting to enlist the help of other editors to get this article up to good or even featured status. While workling on The Real Global Warming Disaster another editor suggested this which I suggest we use as our template/guide. Jprw (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this article is coming along well. In addition to the helpful tips on the page you link to, I suggest:

• Formatting the references correctly using the templates such as CiteNews or CiteBook.
• Make sure that all information in the intro is also mentioned in the main body text. If necessary, that may mean shortening the intro or expanding the body.
• Add a background section, if enough information is available. Currently, background information appears to be included in the intro, so that probably shold be separated out into its own Background section. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated advice, thank you. Jprw (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

A critical review, from the New Statesman online blogs:[5] Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added the NS review. I think that in a short period the article has filled out nicely. We also have the reaction subsequent to the May 1 US publishing date to look foward to, and I wonder if C Hitchens will be reviewing it? In the meantime, if anyone has a hard copy of the book the second and third parts of the synopsis need attention. Once that gets done I'm going to nominate The Rage Against God for GA status -- probably in mid May after the US publication, but I'll need advice from other editors on how to go about this. Jprw (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC) A review from 'the Guardian' (17th April 2010) [6] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

One small point. The Byrnes review is not from the New Statesman itself, but from the New Statesman's online blogs. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC) A review from the Catholic Herald, 30th April 2010:[7] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A review from The Independent, Friday 6th May 2010 [8] Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Rage Against God/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shimeru (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I'm going to place this on hold for now. I don't think the article is in a passing state as it stands, but it doesn't look too far off. It's certainly grown a good deal in a short time as it is.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose is clear, and there don't appear to be obvious spelling or grammar mistakes.

   B. MoS compliance:

   The article is not fully according to WP:MOS. For instance, the WP:LEAD doesn't appear to summarize the body of the article; instead, it presents information that is not otherwise discussed in the article, namely "Peter Hitchens argues in his book that his brother's verdict on religion is misguided, and that faith in God is both a safeguard against the collapse of civilisation into moral chaos and the best antidote to what he sees as the dangerous idea of earthly perfection through utopianism." The Spectator quote is also somewhat questionable -- a summary of the critical reception is certainly appropriate for the lead, but a single quote that includes a few words of puffery is less so.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Citations appear to be in order.

   C. No original research:

   I see no OR issues.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Coverage of the reception seems pretty good, but coverage of the book itself is a little light. I think the Synopsis section could be expanded a little, especially in areas that the critical reviews touch on.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Nothing too egregious, but there's definitely a positive slant running through the article. From the issues with the lead I mentioned above to the remark about his brother's having "expressed admiration for Lenin's achievement of de-christianising Russia" (And is there a secondary source for that claim? Or at least a direct quote? Having it outside a quote like that strikes me as treading a little close to the BLP line.) to a rather laudatory critical-reception section (with a single dissenting review), it appears to me that this article is supportive of the book and its argument, rather than neutrally reporting on it.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Both book covers are listed as CC-by-SA, noting that the copyright holder, Jprw (talk · contribs), has agreed to release it as such. Is this user in fact the individual who designed both covers? (And if so, did he retain the copyright rather than providing work for hire?) Needs some clarification.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Although I wonder whether the photos of Lenin and Trotsky really add anything to the article. Well, I suppose they don't actively detract, in any case...

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold. Thanks for your hard work so far.

Shimeru (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Shimeru

Thanks to Shimeru for his excellent, fair and thorough analysis of the problems with the article. His criticisms and suggestions no doubt serve as a template for us going forward. In the next few weeks I'll try to deal with as many of the (easier) points Shimeru raises (BLP issues/neutrality). I'm afraid however that I won't be able to address the other, very important observation from Shimeru – that the lead is not fully extrapolated throughout the article and that it is too long against the synopsis. In order to solve these issues, a fuller synopsis is needed, and I would need a hard copy of the book in order to be able to write one (which at the moment I do not have). I'm coming to the UK again in July and will order one on Amazon for then. In the meantime, it looks as thought the article will fail the GA nomination, and can be submitted again perhaps in early August after all the problems above have been dealt with, unless, that is, another editor would be so kind as to have a go themselves? Anyway, it isn't a race – it seems to me that we should be aiming to get there slowly and surely, always trying to ensure quality and adhere to WP guidelines along the way. Jprw (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I don't want to leave it on hold on the GA nomination list for that long, so I've failed it for now. Please renominate it once you've had the opportunity to work on it. Shimeru 18:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will be renominating it -- I am confident that the failings you drew attention to can be adequately addressed. Thanks again for your suggestions and taking the trouble to do the assessment. Best, Jprw (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

US reviews

There are more Amazon.com than amazon.co.uk reviews for the book, yet a real paucity of state-side reviews in mainstream papers. This is all I've been able to come up with so far, but in terms of the book it's a bit weak. The search goes on. Jprw (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

For your information there is a review in the 'Weekly Standard', but it does not appear online and I'm not sure how to access it. Also, the Canadian National Post reviewed it. The NY Times mention is already in the article. It was also the subject of a lengthy item on the CBC radio programme 'Q' and of a long slot on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, syndicated in many US radio station. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added Hewitt and the Canadian National Post mentions as external links -- not sure the latter really qualifies as a review. Jprw (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

One More British Review (Gove)

Just thought I'd pass on this review, by Michael Gove in a 'Books of the Year' section in the Mail on Sunday.

'MoS books of the year, Christmas 2010 (MoS 2 5th December 2010)

Michael Gove.

"The two best-written books were Christopher Hitchens's memoirs Hitch 22 and his brother Peter's The Rage Against God . Even though the authors set the benchmark for sibling rivalry, their books prove there is something special about them. Both are restless romantics, enemies of cosy consensus, original minds - and products of an education system that wanted all children to be cultured and questioning.

Peter's book reads as if Cardinal Newman were reflecting on life after battle-scarred years as a foreign correspondent, while Christopher's book, if it were a thoroughbred horse, would be by George Orwell out of Kingsley Amis. I can think of no better pair of books for Christmas reflection." ' Clockback (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC) (Peter Hitchens, logged in as 'Clockback')

Disputed wording in lead

The below is copied from user Ramos1990's talk page

The Rage Against God

Your edit summary: "these statements are negligible and have no citation. More info than needed" is demonstrably false. This is perfectly acceptable (indeed necessary) background information for the lead which helps create a useful summary and overview for the reader, and because of the very basic and indisputable nature of the descriptions, no citations are needed. Please do not remove it again. Thanks. Jprw (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not essential information since even if you look at the God is not great page it does not add these kinds of details in the introduction. Clearly Christipher Hitchen's work is polemical since he is not an empirical researcher, nor is he an expert on these issues, nor did he do any academic research on the issues he speaks on, but it is not essential to add the "polemical" judgment on the intro to his book. This is would clearly be bias and a weird attempt at downplaying the book's contents. The focus is the book, not the author per se. For that you should go to the author's Wikipedia page. Also to mention "autobiographical" is redundant since the sentence right after clearly notes that he speaks about his story out of militant atheism. His "traditionalism conservatism" is NOT essential information since you don't see "liberal" or "polemic" on Christopher Hitchen's book as being a part of the general introduction. At least provide a citation if you want to keep this point -which is negligible and does not make the article more neutral. My edit is in line with keeping articles more neutral and reducing needless judgmental lables. Your arguments are not convincing so far to keep this information on the article. Before we continue to undo each other's edits we should settle the discourse here. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think that I am trying to introduce an element of bias against P Hitchens, when all I am doing is giving necessary, utterly non-controversial and indisputable background information which is completely appropriate for the lead and which is helpful to the reader. You use as justification for your changes a kind of "well, the GING article doesn't have it so why should this one?" which seems a bit bizarre. I'm going to reinsert the information as your arguments are unconvincing and, dare I say it, bordering on the extreme. Please do not remove it again. Thanks. Jprw (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is still unconvincing for the same reasons as stated above. How is this extreme? None of this information is essential information for the book at all. Apparently you think this is somehow important so please explain how this adds to the introduction in a more neutral fashion. GING reads very neutral and is straight to the point without adding things like "polemical" and adding "liberal" as part of the intro. Even though it is an "indisputable fact" that this book is clearly a polemical work since Chritopher Hitchens has done no empirical research or academic research on those topics at all, it does not seem appropriate to add this information in the introduction. If anything what you wish to preserve could be placed in "critical reception" section of the article. This would not be a problem and would be more appropriate. This about neutrality and cutting off pointless information on the introduction.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a pointless, silly a waste of time and you are spectacularly missing the point(s). But anyway, here we go again: this is necessary, utterly non-biased or problematic background information, and a completely appropriate type of descriptive language for the lead which "sets the scene" for the reader. That you think it is biased and unnecessary is an extreme (and slightly bizarre) position to take. The article is up for GA nomination and if you do not stop your actions will be a serious impediment to that process. So please try to see sense and stop this nonsense. Cheers. Jprw (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Explain how this is necessary. You claimed "this is necessary, utterly non-biased or problematic background information, and a completely appropriate type of descriptive language for the lead which "sets the scene" for the reader." Incorrect, since the deletion of the little information you are defending does not add essential context at all. The introduction as it stands (without claiming that it is polemical or emphasizing a conservative interpretation on the author) already sets up the most basic information of the contents of the book in a neutral fashion. This is all a reader needs to know in the introduction of this article. Let the readers decide if he is "traditionalist conservative" and if the work is "polemical" or not; as they read the book. It is NOT our job as editors of wikipedia to slant a book or the author before people read it. The articles in Wikipedia are to be NEUTRAL and add relevant information without judgment claims (Wikipedia:NPOV). Look at GING for how a decent neutral intro looks like. If you disagree, then you would have to add that Christopher Hitchen's GING is also "polemical" on that article if you wish to avoid hypocrisy on this issue. I do not understand why you can't see that this does not belong in the introduction. You can move it to the "critical reception" if you like, but it does not belong in the introduction. This should solve your issue one this.

In my opinion, your stance is quite exaggerated and "extreme" because you think that keeping this information (without citations by the way) is "necessary" for the book and to "set the scene" for the readers. This does not set the scene, this slants it before people read the darn book. All I did was remove unnecessary and redundant information (4 key words). I didn't add anything to the article. How is this extreme? Please help make wikipedia more neutral on this issue. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(Copying exchange over before seeking third opnion) Jprw (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You continue to miss the two essential points, in a rather alarmingly obtuse fashion: 1) Your assertion: Look at GING for how a decent neutral intro looks like. If you disagree, then you would have to add that Christopher Hitchen's GING is also "polemical" on that article if you wish to avoid hypocrisy on this issue is flawed – rather, this means that the description at GING is a bit threadbare and could do with some more descriptive language, i.e. RAG is the article that is up to standard, not GING; 2) Including absolutely basic, utterly indisputable descriptions of the book and author is in no way a compromise of neutrality! Anyway I have sought the opinion of a third editor. Jprw (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Hey guys, I'm here from the 3O board. After looking at this, I'd generally say that it's not really necessary for those insertions to be in there. I don't have anything particularly against saying that the author is a traditionalist conservative; it could be useful, although we wikilink to his article, so it's not super necessary. Saying that the book is autobiographical and polemic, though, isn't really necessary at all. By saying that the book describes Hitchen's personal journey, we're implying that it's autobiographical, and the next sentence (which says that he's writing it in response to his brother's book) implies that it's polemical. "Polemical" to me has a negative connotation; while I don't think in this case it's intended that way, given that the word isn't providing any new information, I'd say it's best that we leave it out. "Autobiographical" is less controversial, but in the interest of brevity, I'd say leave it out here too. "Traditionalist conservative," for the record, I'm indifferent about; probably leave it in. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Writ Keeper. I agree with much of what you have claimed. I originally proposed to Jprw to discuss this on the talk page before we continued to revert each other's edits, but this seemed to be futile. I was going to ask for two other editors to oversee the situation, but it looks like you already contributed. Thanks.

1) the "Traditionalist conservative" deletion is good and belongs better in Peter Hitchens biography wikipedia page. If people wish to know more about his views, it is reasonable to go to the biography than to mention it in the "Rage Against God" article.

2) the "autobiography" deletion was redundant so not much of problem there. Should be simple enough.

3) the "polemic" deletion was for similar reasons as Writ Keeper and because other polemic works do not mention this in their introductions, which make their introductions more neutral (e.g. God is not great, The God Delusion, Dawkins Delusion).

The way it looks now is cleaner and if there is a want to add something about Peter Hitchen's views probably you can say that he is a "Christian writer" or something like that. That should be ok since this is pretty neutral information. Probably best to keep things simpler and more focused on the books contents, the books history (economic, reception, etc.), and things about the book aside from an author's "type" of view (conservative, liberal, etc.); and if the work is "polemical", or "rant", or "unrelaible", etc. After all this article about the book, not the author. Hope there are no hard feelings as my intent was not to attack or offend Jprw. Just doing my job.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1) the "Traditionalist conservative" deletion is good and belongs better in Peter Hitchens biography wikipedia page. If people wish to know more about his views, it is reasonable to go to the biography than to mention it in the "Rage Against God" article. 2) the "autobiography" deletion was redundant so not much of problem there. Should be simple enough. Maybe, but could also be useful basic background information for the reader. Does it detract from or add to the article? I would suggest the latter.

3) the "polemic" deletion was for similar reasons as Writ Keeper and because other polemic works do not mention this in their introductions, which make their introductions more neutral Here I'm afraid you are completely barking up the wrong tree. You are labouring under the delusion that adding the word "polemic" is somehow non-neutral. It is a statement of fact that no-one can argue with -- either supporters or opponents of Hitchens. And the fact that those other articles don't have this word is irrelevant, neither here nor there.

probably you can say that he is a "Christian writer" or something this is just plain wrong, he is chiefly known for being a political writer, with traditional conservative leanings. Read the opening of his WP entry.

My thanks however also go to Writ Keeper for taking the trouble to analyse this issue. Although I do not agree with his findings I will accept them, in the interests of democracy:) If any other editors subsequently concur that adding back the removed descriptive words would improve the lead and the way it reads (which is my fundamental point) then perhaps this issue can be revisited. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear, I think Ramos suggested "Christian writer" because I had accidentally typed "Christian" in my initial reply when I meant to type "conservative" (I have since gone back and corrected the typo). I blame the election year, personally.

If you'll forgive me for beating a freshly-dead horse a little bit, let me just explain why I think "polemical" is possibly non-neutral. I'm not saying that his book isn't polemical in the strict sense of the word. As I said, the rest of the lede seems to say that on its own. But that word itself has a negative connotation. Look at the Merriam-Webster webpage for it: the first definition calls it an aggressive attack on another's opinions. The examples-in-a-sentence, which square with the way I've seen the word used, use phrases like "a fierce polemic" and "without resorting to polemics." So, those are pretty clearly negative connotations for the word. If the rest of the lede didn't already say that he wrote it in response to someone else, I would probably support it being in there, but as it is, I think by taking it out, we remove any potential problems without losing any significant information in the lede.

Regardless, though, thanks for your time and effort, Jprw. I see where you're coming from, even though I don't agree. :)

Also: that friggin' transclusion keeps getting in my way. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional thoughts which have shed further light on this issue. I have consulted the 2008 edition of the Chambers dictionary (a UK publication) and it too in its definition of "polemics" includes terms which appear to undermine the word's neutrality: "controversial" and "hostile". I therefore concede that this word is problematic and accept its exclusion (I suspect the problem may have stemmed from seeing the Hitchens brothers on countless occasions being described as "polemicists", almost as though it were a job title). As for the other disputed words in the lead, those seem to be less problematic, and perhaps can be reinstated at some point in the simple interests of having a lead that reads well. Thanks to editors Writ Keeper and Ramos1990 for flagging the "polemics" problem though. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC) PS The transclusion is a pain:)

Glad to hear my ramblings made sense. Since it seems that we're pretty much decided to leave the article as is (without prejudice to the reinsertion of "autobiagraphical" or "traditionalist conservative" by an uninvolved editor in the future), I'm gonna bow out at this point; drop me a line at my talk page if you think there's anything more I can do to help. Thanks all! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, your help is much appreciated:) Regards, Jprw (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Rage Against God/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The passing review has been declared invalid so I will conduct a reassessment to see if it meets the good article criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Spot checks check out. Not sure of the relevence of "in both left- and right-leaning media publications" though. I feel it needs justification (a reference) to include otherwise it comes off as original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I am a little concerned about the length of the plot section. It is also overly detailed (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Criticism and praise is included.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The rational for File:The Rage Against God - American Cover.jpg says it is to "To illustrate the American version of the book", but this is not supported by the text and does not seem to provide any extra educational value (see Wikipedia:NFCC#8). The captions under two of the other pictures need to be written to better relate to the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A few questions. I am willing to seek a second opinion on any if you feel strongly about them AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to do the reassessment. To address the problem areas:

Re: 2: Perhaps "was reviewed extensively on both sides of the Atlantic"?

Re: 3: You are right, the synopsis is 1,200 words but WP:MoS indicates 900 as usually being sufficient. I'll have a go at paring back the material and summarizing appropriately those points gone into in what might be excessive detail.

Re: 6: a) Perhaps the American cover can be put in the release details section (but this is hardly critical and perhaps the best solution would be to delete it from the article) b) I'll have a go at rewriting the captions you flag.

I should be able to get round to doing the above in the next 24 hours. Regards, Jprw (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will re-pass it now AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)