# Talk:The Servile State

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class because it uses a sub-category of [[Category:Book stubs]] on the article page.

If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
If you disagree with this assessment, please:
Change the above "class=stub" to "class=start" or another applicable class per Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Assessment#Quality scale;
Remove the stub template from the article.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Servile State/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 23:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 03:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking this one. First pass looks good more to follow

Hi @Czarking0: First, thanks for taking on this monster of a GA; I really appreciate you taking the time to go through this. I intend to get to fixing or responding to your comments tonight, but I wanted to just add really quickly that I'm pretty sure File:Kenneth_Minogue.jpg has a license ("This image was taken from Flickr's The Commons. The uploading organization may have various reasons for determining that no known copyright restrictions exist [...]."). The uploading organization appears to be the British Library of Political and Economic Science. Let me know if you still have concerns about this image. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
You are correct. Marked through Czarking0 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, finally getting to the review. I have a few questions, but most of these were easy fixes.
Re: 1a – I'm not sure what you mean; do you mean moving Contrasting servile laws [...] to the bottom of subsection Critique of contemporary law or something else? I wrote contents in generally the same order as Belloc did in the book, but if you think there's a good rationale for shifting stuff around, I suppose I'm open to it.
Yes, I think it is odd for the reader to go into a contrastive section without a clear understanding of what is being contrasted. This is outside the GA criteria so it is just my opinion.
I see. I think this is a just a poor choice of words on my part; it's contrastive ipso facto since it is defining what a servile law is by contrasting it with other known laws. I've changed it to Defining servile laws.
Did you though? I searched and did not find it.
Re: 1b – Another user added that while I was in the middle of my massive rewrite. As my draft got longer, I didn't really pay attention to where it was since it was in, contextually, probably the best spot in the article, since Reception contextualizes the book in the context of British conservatism (where a reader might say: "Hey, maybe I'd like to learn about other British conservative writers now that I've read through the summary of this book and see the reception it got."). I don't know if there's really a hard-and-fast rule MOS-wise, but I think moving it up will disrupt the placement of more useful images.
WP:NAVBOX is the best guideline I could find on this.
All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.  Done
The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. - weak but it could count
The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. - only references Chesterton which is weak
There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.  Done
If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.  Not done
In light of this I think the navbox should either be removed or should be replaced with the catholic social teaching box. If the latter is chosen please update Chesterton's page accordingly.
I'm going to push back a little bit here. For one, I also discuss Hayek, not just Chesterton and he's compared to Burke by Arthur Cleary; I've linked the British Conservative Party as well. I think it's clear that Belloc is referenced as the "conservative element" in many areas of Reception. Still more, were the box not there, I think it would be reasonable for me to link several concepts presented in the box, namely Blue Labour, Red Tory, Liberalism in the United Kingdom, and John Henry Newman at the very least. And I think Henry Edward Manning should be in the box as well, given his influence on both Newman and Belloc. Still more, I think a lot of Belloc's influence was outside of Britain (e.g., Minogue, Day, Lippmann, etc.), so it might make sense to discuss Belloc in the context of British conservatism, but it would be inappropriate to discuss him in wider context of global conservatism, given the relative scope of his influence.
This is good pushback. I'll admit I forgot Hayek became British. I read some of those other articles and I think you made your point.
Re: 2a – Seems to have been a bit of confusion on my part. [1] served to confirm time in office and party since that is on the linked page without delving into the journals. [2] served to demonstrate that he was one of a small number of serving Catholics, though it also incidentally affirms the party and time in service (and also his French roots).
Re: 2b
 Changed to inability of his colleagues
The Imaginative Conservative itself is probably mostly suitable for things like WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:RSOPINION, but I've cited it here since the authors themselves are reputable for the topic at hand. Pearce in particular is a well-known scholar of Belloc (mostly for his biography Old Thunder: A Life of Hilaire Belloc, which I have not been able to get access to) and Médaille is a fairly well-known distributist and a professor of Catholic theology.
I am not sure I buy the "authors themselves" line. Paul Krugman is a reputable economist. His twitter page is BS. This falls somewhere in between. I looked more closely at how you use this source and it is really just to paint more of the picture of how Belloc is seen by modern authors. I think is a reasonable use of this kind of source.
Fair enough point, but yes, I agree that in this context it seems reasonable.
Re: 3a –  Hopefully this is clearer now. I've also expanded/added quotes from the sources for readers to examine.
Re: 3b – I think so since Wiley is a well-known academic publisher and the section in question was written by an Oxford history professor. Maybe I can add something like Oxford historian Ben Jackson wrote [...] to clarify why the piece is worth adding.
Yes I think that is worth it.
 Done
Okay, I think I've gotten everything. Let me know what you think and if you think of anything else. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Czarking0: Courtesy pinging