# Talk:An End to al-Qaeda

Notable book. Per WP:NBOOK Criteria number one (1). The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. 
Namely, Journal of Strategic Security, Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus Reviews. Sagecandor (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:An End to al-Qaeda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Further reading" section uses Harvard anchors, but the citations are not set up to point to them; this is not really a references section, rather a list of books by Nance, so use "ref=none" to disable the Harvard anchors.  Are all these books relevant to this article?  The Plot to Hack America appears unrelated, for example.
The list of "See also" is very long; some of these could probably be cut.  It should be limited to articles that are directly related to the topic of this article but not linked; why do we need a link to Arab Spring, for example?
Nance criticizes the approach of the George W. Bush Administration, including the optics and verbiage used in the War on Terror: I'm not clear what's meant by "optics" in this context.  Do you mean something like "the way the conduct of the War on Terror appeared to the public"?
Nance writes the United States should do much more to engage traditional believers in Islam around the world to denounce al-Qaeda through education and a public relations campaign: Not very clear.  I think you mean that the US should convince traditional believers in Islam that they should denounce al-Qaeda, and that the US should achieve this goal via education and a PR campaign.
provides a thesis attempting to prescribe how to vanquish: much too wordy; four nested verbs here.  Something like "describes how Nance believes al-Qaeda and bin Laden can be defeated" would be much clearer.
The summary section is full of "The author explains...  The author asserts...  Nance writes...  He suggests..."  Much of this can go; the reader understands they're reading a summary.
He asserts the Muslim people exist spiritually along a broad scope of practice: vague.
traditional Muslim people want the same goals and aspirations for their families as the desires of U.S. citizens: needs rephrasing; the desires don't want the same goals.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sagecandor, are you planning to work on this?  If not I'll fail the article in another week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike Christie If you are willing to wait up to a week from now, I'll work on Sagecandor's remaining GANs. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Bennv3771: sure.  So long as work is going on, I'm happy to let the nominations stay open. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: - I have addressed everything but the Harvard notes. I'm not familiar with that aspect at all. Could you explain what needs to be changed, or change it yourself and provide me a diff? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Argento Surfer I've fixed the Harvard anchors. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I think this is just about there, though the prose is still a bit clunky in places.  Promoting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)