Talk:Boots theory/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 06:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. As an initial observation, I would suggest adding a suitable image of footwear to the WP:LEAD. TompaDompa (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa Thank you! I just added one - I thought a sketch would be better than any recognizable brand and the image was also apparently already used to create a userbox based on the theory. I think a better caption might be in order, I'll sleep on it and hopefully come up with something. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• Is this actually an economic theory? It seems to me to be an illustrative example of the concept of a (particular kind of) poverty premium.

Lead

• theory that people in poverty have to buy cheap and subpar products that need to be replaced repeatedly, proving more expensive in the long run than more expensive items – this is not really covered in the body of the article, unless you count the quote from Men at Arms itself, in which case this is WP:INTERPRETATION of a primary source.

Conception

• The in-universe details get a bit excessive. I might replace the entire first paragraph with "In the 1993 Discworld novel Men at Arms by Terry Pratchett, police captain Sam Vimes muses:" or something along those lines.
• cynical but likable – this is Rhianna Pratchett's description. I would say attribute it, but it would be better to just remove it.
• In the novel 1993 novel Men at Arms – duplicate "novel".
• It should be noted that the term the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness comes from Men at Arms itself.
• In the book "Fashion in the Fairy Tale Tradition", Rebecca-Anne C. Do Rozario argued "shoes and economic autonomy are inexorably linked" in fairy tales, citing the Boots' theory as "particularly relevant" and "an insightful metaphor for inequality". – this quotes the source so selectively as to be kind of misleading. The source says "an insightful metaphor for inequality articulated through footwear" and "particularly relevant to the concerns of this chapter". The chapter is called "Shoes, the Sole of Fairy Tale: Stepping Between Desire and Damnation", and the author is primarily making a point about the role of shoes in fairy tales rather than about Pratchett, Discworld, Men at Arms, Vimes, or the boots theory. I think this kind of misses the mark, since the pertinent point for this section of the article is that the author identifies footwear being used in an economic context as one of many motifs that Pratchett's work shares with fairy tales.

Examples

• Since the publication of Men at Arms, others have also made reference to the theory. – "reference" is very much the key word here. The instances listed here aren't really examples of the same mechanism.
  • The ConsumerAffairs article states this outright: "Granted, Vimes' particular problem — keeping his feet shod in shoddy boots — probably doesn't apply to Fingerhut shoppers; though we haven't tested this ourselves, we're sure that Carrini boots or Reebok sneakers bought from Fingerhut are just as good as Carrini or Reebok items bought elsewhere." The premium there comes from purchasing the same item on credit and needing to pay interest, rather than purchasing a lesser item that needs to be replaced sooner.
  • Similarly, the fuel poverty example illustrates a completely different mechanism: the premium comes from needing to prepay due to a lack of certainty of income, thus not qualifying for a discount (in some sense the opposite of the above).
  • The sustainable vs. accessible fashion example doesn't really relate to a poverty premium at all, but a wikt:green premium. The boots theory is mentioned in the context of quality goods being associated with a higher upfront cost, but it is not a lens through which that market is analysed.
  • The Tribune examples are about poverty premiums in terms of renting being more expensive than buying and higher interest rates for poorer people, as well as indirect delayed costs through poor nutrition. These are all different mechanisms than the "boots" one.
  • The "Vimes Boot Index" isn't really about a poverty premium at all, but about the prices of the cheapest goods seeing a disproportionate rise compared to the overall average.
• If Dorset Eye is a blog, what makes it a reliable source?
• What is the image here meant to illustrate?
• ex-staff from the ONS – a bit of an odd phrasing. I would use a construction with "former".
• quoted Pratchett to say "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness" – it should really be noted that this is also from Men at Arms.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See my comments above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See my comments above.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   See my comments above.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See my comments above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no overt copyvio, but it is borderline. I have not made a thorough check for unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing as the article needs fairly extensive adjustments.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   This is a bit tricky to assess, since the topic of the article is kind of difficult to pin down.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   This is a bit tricky to assess, since the topic of the article is kind of difficult to pin down.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   There are no obvious neutrality issues, inasmuch as all opinions are clearly attributed.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Both images appear to have acceptable licenses.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   See my comments above.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Ping TheTranarchist. I'm of a mind to close this nomination as unsuccessful, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond before I make up my mind. At its core, I don't think the approach taken here really works. As noted above, the article calls this an economic theory and treats it as such, but that doesn't seem entirely justified to me. Do academic sources on economics do that? If so, they should form the basis for the article. The "Examples" section is also really more of a collection of references to the boots theory, as noted above. Obviously, that's a problem when it's the majority of the article.

Some of this material could and should be covered at Men at Arms and/or cost of poverty, but it's not entirely clear to me that this is viable as a stand-alone article. If it is, that would probably be as an article on the cultural phenomenon of using this example to explain this type of poverty premium to laypeople, rather than as an article on the underlying economic idea (which also means that it doesn't really belong in the "Economics and business" section of WP:GAN).

I'm rather a fan of Discworld and not terribly impressed with Wikipedia's overall coverage of the series, so I was pleasantly surprised when I saw this nominated and was looking forward to reading and reviewing it (and hopefully promoting it to WP:Good article status). Unfortunately, I think this article needs a more extensive rewrite than is really within the scope of the WP:GAN process. TompaDompa (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa Thank you for the in-depth review and opportunity to address the issues!

1. I agree it illustrates the poverty premium rather than being distinct, but I'll have to do a once-over of the sources to see if they actually state that.
2. WRT the lead, there are some sources that state the theory illustrates that general concept. I'll try and add some to conception and update the lead to match.
3. WRT conception, those changes are easy to make. Quick question though, would it count as a copyright violation to quote the full paragraph instead of abridging it? I asked on the talk page before nominating but nobody weighed in.
4. WRT examples: I can change it to "references" and trim it a bit. I think the fast fashion part isn't just a green premium as the source says fast fashion is less durable, ie the cardboard boots in the equation. I'm not sure where "left-wing blog" comes from, considering the Dorset Eye seems to be governed by IMPRESS and have clearly defined editorial fact-checking policies.
5. WRT the image, that's a picture of the ONS report showing the rise in price of the cheapest versions of staple foods. It's more directly related to the VBI than the boots theory concept itself. I could update the caption to be Price changes in the cheapest versions of 30 staple foods between September 2021 and 2022 in the U.K. according to ONS report if you think that version better covers it?

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, we seem to be in a fair amount of agreement about the main points here. Some replies:

3. I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, we should always be conservative when using copyrighted material and keep it to a minimum. On the other hand, if The New York Times is comfortable quoting it in its entirety and making money off of it, Wikipedia is probably fine doing likewise as a non-profit. I would at least suggest including the final line This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

4. You shouldn't call the section "References", as that's the heading typically used for the list of references in the sense of sources/citations. At any rate, the underlying problem is that something being mentioned in a book, and then receiving a bunch of references in popular culture, is not really a proper foundation for a Wikipedia article. It would be different if there were analysis of the concept in the sources (though these are also fairly low-quality sources for that kind of content), but they don't—they mention it while discussing related but distinct points.

5. That caption would indeed much better explain the purpose of the image.

In summary, this article needs a rewrite to tighten up its scope and focus, and align those with the perspective(s) taken by the sources on the subject matter. This is best done outside of the WP:GAN process. It's also more fair to you to be able to work on the article at your own pace without the pressure of a looming deadline and to get a fresh assessment of the article once you're done. I'll ping an editor who has a knack for writing articles on things that appear in fiction and how they have been analysed afterwards, and who might have further input/feedback/suggestions to share: Chiswick Chap, who has written a large number of quality articles on Tolkien-related matters.

Thanks for your work thus far, and I wish you the best of luck with this article in the future. TompaDompa (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.