# Talk:A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530205230/http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/The-25--Essential--Books-for-the-Well-Read-Explorer--15-11.html to http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/The-25--Essential--Books-for-the-Well-Read-Explorer--15-11.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.paripublishing.com/downloads/feeding_geographical.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313025830/http://travelerstales.com/carpet/002424.shtml to http://travelerstales.com/carpet/002424.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It struck me that the lead did not always reflect what is in the body of the article and included material that did not appear later. In addition the publication section was too detailed for an encyclopaedia. I have an idea that User:Chiswick Chap will wish to discuss these edits. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You are right that I will wish to do so, and will decide what to do when I have considered the matter properly. If the lead did not summarize the article then it needs to be extended, and if it contained material not in the body then it needed to be moved down there and summarized in the lead, not deleted, so the grounds given do not make a lot of sense to me. However I'll look at it later and take action as required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree about the need to move some material down to the body of the article. I didn't want to make too many changes until  reaching consensus on what needs doing. Do you wish us to continue the coversation here or one one or other of our talk pages? My main concern, despite 2013 commendation, is that parts of the article are not encyclopaedic. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I already said I will reply in due course, and I am hardly surprised you "agree" when I stated agreement with a small part of your sudden action. Your "didn't want to make too many changes" and talk of "consensus" sits very oddly with an unheralded block deletion to a Good Article which, obviously, has been independently reviewed. Further, several years have gone by without any objections, so frankly your conduct appears arrogant in the extreme. But as I say, I will study your changes and reply in due course. Now please sit back and give me some time to do what I said. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've revisited the article. I've shortened the lead slightly, but 3 paras is as per MoS and looking at it now, it certainly isn't excessive. The Background section is brief, relevant, and proportionate (and acceptable to the GA reviewer). There is no reason not to mention Publication and Illustration briefly in a book article, so I've restored much of these. Without the named sections, the 'Book' coverage became strikingly unbalanced: it is plainly sensible to cover 'the main aspects' of a topic, and indeed this is mandated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The person showing "arrogance" here is User:Chiswick Chap who, as principal contributor to this article, is showing the worst  symptoms of WP:OWN. As for the Good Article status which he mentions, the template states plainly above that “If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.” That is what I, as someone with past experience as sub-editor of a specialist encyclopaedia, was trying to do. If Chiswick Chap is not prepared to engage in courteous discussion on the subject, then there are WP procedures to have the article reassessed.
Happy to discuss with anybody, but I had asked for a moment to think quietly what to do, which you didn't allow me. I've started on your suggestions already.
My main objection to this so-called “good” article is that it fails to meet guidelines. One example is the citation from “The Telegraph” describing the book as one of its "20 best travel books of all time". To begin with, the newspaper is The Daily Telegraph and is only known by the shorter title by UK readers. Its list in addition cites almost exclusively 20th century works written only in English. One wonders in what way this anonymous piece with its mindless and exclusive journalese “of all time” can be counted of encyclopaedic interest? Nor is it particularly encyclopaedic to include quite so many works in the Reception section, all of them commenting on the book’s humour. It is little better than a list itself and needs to be made much shorter.
I'll edit it down, but it seems unwise to lose any refs, which would lead to assertions about notability. The newspaper calls itself "The Telegraph" on its front page these days but we can call it whatever you think best. I've trimmed the reception and the Telegraph's claims.
The synopsis section does not meet Good Article standard as per WP:PLOTSUM, especially in subdividing the account into a titled list. The account of what appears in each chapter is too detailed, as for example “He hit Hugh a violent blow of affection in the small of his back, just as he was drinking his coffee. 'Urggh!'" A shorter more compressed summary of what is there is necessary to meet Good Article standards. And do we really need a blank subsection titled Maps when  their inclusion is already described under Illustrations? Mention is made there of “14 monochrome photographs”, one showing Wilfred Thesiger. This may be true of the 1974 edition, but not of the 1958, which has 24 but does not include Thesiger. Nor does the 1958 edition include the section titles “The Rag Trade”, “Training”, “Driving Out” and “Journey”; neither do they appear in the other editions I have been able to consult.
"Maps" removed (it was just part of the list of contents).
Photographs: trimmed.
Section titles removed, they were in later editions only.
Chapter text: edited down.
But maybe not enough yet? Guidelines mention "It should not cover every scene and every moment of a story".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetpool50 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Sections of the article are demonstrably unsatisfactory and need rewriting to achieve encyclopaedic standards of tone, accuracy and conciseness. Since I was warned off bad-temperedly when I attempted to bring up the need for revision on Chiswick Chap’s talk page, I now point them out publicly on the article’s talk page and hope to see some improvement shortly. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for the comments, though I deprecate their tone. I will revise the article this week along the lines indicated, and have already made a start on them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I am grateful for the quick response and will stay in touch with progress. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)