Talk:Anarchism/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peter cohen (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Initial skim indicates that this is not a quick fail.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Assessment template below will be completed as I go.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC) On questions fo balance, I'm willing to be convinced. WHen I was an activist, I was a member of the then Anarchist Communist Federation and other left-leaning groups. If people think my view has been distorted by that, then do put your case.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Fight against fascism marked up numerous successful victories As opposed to unsuccesful ones? Apart from the tautology, this language reads as if an anarchist may have written it as if conributing to a propaganda sheet and might be slightly POV.

   I can live with the current revision marked up some victories but I still feel that "victories" is activist-speak. I can't think of any better wording however. I'll let this pass for GA but I woudl definitely want it changed before FA.-Peter cohen (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   I see this is now fixed.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lede: The last paragraph about etymology etc. isn't part of the summary of the article and needs to be either given its own section or included in with the history.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   fixed, thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   Russian Revolution Whites needs explaining. I think ,most people would associate the term either with race or potatoes.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   I wasn't entirely happy with your wording. "Reactionary" strikes me as left-speak. What do you think of my version?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   No worries, I wasn't beholden to the original wording. I chose "reactionary" because the only unifying characteristic of the motley group of Tsarists, liberals, capitalists, foreigners and nationalists that was the White movement was their opposition to the Revolution.  Skomorokh  22:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

   Post-classical anarchism:Anarchism continues to generate many eclectic and syncretic philosophies and movements; Syncretic is a sufficiently obscure term, that I think it could do with explanation.

   Fixed thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Organised Labour: The celebration of International Workers' Day on May Day became an annual event the following year. It would be good to reference this.

   Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Malatesta thought that trade-unions were reformist, and could even be, at times, conservative. Along with Cornelissen, he cited as example US trade-unions, where trade-unions composed of qualified workers sometimes opposed themselves to non-qualified workers in order to defend their relatively privileged position. Could this be reffed? I could see mention of Cornelissen in the Maletesa link for the previous sentence, but couldn't see the US mentioned. Would the book Malatesta: Life and Ideas cover it? It's available in the UK. Indeed I have a copy and could look it up, but I'm wary of compromising my role as GA reviewer by fixing too many points.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Russian Revolution:Communist parties grew at the expense of anarchism and other socialist movements. In France and the US, for example, certain members of the major syndicalist movements of the CGT and IWW left the organizations and joined the Communist International. I think a citation should be included.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Fight against fascism The last two paras have no refs.-Peter cohen (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

   Russian Revolution: For them, Bakunin's predictions about the consequences of Marxist rule that the rulers of the new "socialist” Marxist state would become a new elite[47] had proved all too true. I think it needs to be shown tha Emma G or Alex B actually referred to Bakunin when criticising the Bolsheviks.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   (I'm not sure whether this fits ubder A or B below, so I've put it above them) I remain to be convinced that Free Love is as important as claimed. If it is, then I wonder why the 1960s and the likes of Alex Comfort don't get a mention.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Conversely if it is felt appropriate to include a broader range of social factors beyond revolutionarism and labour rights, then I should have thought that other issues such as libertarian education should be covered. I'm satisfied with the current structure where Free Love doesn't stand out so much among a wider range of issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Schools of thought This section needs substantial condensation per WP:SUMMARY. We already have an article Anarchist_schools_of_thought which in turn summarises the individual schools. Some of the subsections in the article under review are of almost the same length as the corresponding articles in the schools article; indeed there is more material on mutualism here than there. Don't get me wrong. I think the material here is of GA quality. It's just that it belongs in that other article which, judging by the similarity in a lot of the wording, seems to have been spun off from here. I suggest that the following is done. First, the current material here should be copied into a subpage off the schools article. This can then be noted in the talk page of the schools article so that editors there can decide where things are put better here and should be added to or replace maerial there. Then the material here should be cut back drastically. Perhaps a paragraph on the approach of each school within a definition list. Some of the first paragraphs in subsections here seem suitable to include in such a list. Then just one or two key theorists can be named per school.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   Much more appropriate now, thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   "According to George Orwell and other foreign observers," Given Orwell fought for the POUM], he was rather more than an observer. In any case, I would expect a citation to the relevant chapter of Homage to Catalonia and some citations for these other foreign observers. otherwise a "Who" tempalte is likely to be inserted.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Post-classical anarchism: since the revival of anarchism in the U.S. in the 1960s,[141] a number of new movements and schools have emerged. Is the US really that central? Or is the WP:systemic bias? If the US is important, it needs a reference to prove it. I'm also puzzled why pre-60s authors such as Emma Goldman then get a mention in the next paragraph.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Hopefully, nobody will start one while I'm reviewing.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   The copyleft status claimed at Commons for the picture of Hakim Bey is doubtful. I have asked the initial uploader and (s)he is unable to confirm whether photo initially belonged to the site (s)he got it from or was released to them under a copyleft license. Choices are to conact the site, to find another source for this or equivalent picture or to remove the pic.|The copyleft status claimed at Commons for the picture of Hakim Bey is doubtful. I have asked the initial uploader and (s)he is unable to confirm whether photo initially belonged to the site (s)he got it from or was released to them under a copyleft license. CHoces are to conact the site, to find another source for this or equivalent picture or to remove the pic. I see this has been fixed. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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

   If there's room after the rework, then a picture of Proudhon would be nice. This won't make the difference between pass or fail.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm putting this on hold. The schools section needing condensing is the major issue. A few of the things under the question marked sections could be lived with. I haven't yet been through the notes and references as I expect a lot to disappear with the schools section rewrite.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Misc comments I suggest mentioning the CNT's peak membership in the 1930s as you mention 21st century numners.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

THanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there should be refs for everything flagged above; I've added in comments about CNT membership and removed some of the questionably POV phrasing (Orwell, successful victories). The schools of thought leviathan has been choked from 53kb on January 7 to a paltry 22kb today, and is now of comparable length to the Social movement section. I'm unsure of how to deal with the "free love" and "libertarian education" subsections; though the material is important and relevant, it disrupts the chronological flow of the section. The content could perhaps be moved to Issues in anarchism and summarised in that section. If there's anything I've missed or further issues please feel free to flag them.  Skomorokh  07:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, I am working through the points above and striking them off. I'm not sdure that I'll get through them all this evening, but should be done tomorrow. However, in the mean time I have noticed that

1. Some new material has appeared. While at first glance the content isn't inappropriate, I note that some of it is unreferenced.
2. There have been a couple of editing exchanges today. It's advisable to take such issues to the talk page especially when there is a GA review going on.

Given the new material, I'm going to have to do a thorough re-read over tomorrow and Thursday which may or may not lead to my asking for further changes..--Peter cohen (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

--Peter cohen (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Review after initial hold period

I'm working through the article again making some minor copy edits as I go to try to reduce what I raise here. --Peter cohen (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think that there are two many footnotes in the lead. I'm specifically thinking of where several are stacked up in a row. I think it would be less intimidating to readers if there were one foot note that referenced six sources rather than six footnotes stacked up together.

• The First International: In 1868, following their unsuccessful participation in the League of Peace and Freedom (LPF), Mikhail Bakunin and his associates joined the First International – which had decided not to get involved with the LPF. They allied themselves with the federalist socialist sections of the International, who advocated the revolutionary overthrow of the state and the collectivization of property.

  The paragraph is unreferenced.

  I also think that Bakunin needs some sort of explanation in the text. I have considered phrase such as "the exiled Russian aristocrat" and/or "veteran of [May Uprising in Dresden|one of the last of the 1848 events]]".

*Organized labor: Police intervention led to the deaths of four men, enraging the workers of the city.

• This reads like activist-speak to me. I'm attempted to ask what proportion of Chicago's workers were enraged. Also I don't understand what exactly is meant by by the police intevention leading to the deaths. If it is something overt like their shooting them, then that should be clearly stated. If it is less explicit then a neutral source needs to be referenced to say it was specificially the cops' fault.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Libertarian Education. I inserted a para on Summerhill and free schools which needs someone else to check.

• Russian Revolution: First para lacks references.

• Contemporary anarchism: This looks a good addition but needs referencing. BTW, I'm not convinced that Anarchy in the UK merits a mention. Crass, Conflict etc. were a lot more thorough-going anarchist than the Pistols.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:ENGVAR. Both "labour" and "labor" appear in this article as do both -ize and -ise verb forms. There needs to be some form of standardisation. Having done a find on both ther above differences, the US variety seems to be in a majority. If they want, someone can check the history to see which ENGVAR was established first. Otherwise Americanisation will involve less work.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I fixed a couple that were missed

• Internal issues and debates: This is another sparsely referenced section.

• The copyright tag on File:S17.jpeg is incorrect and needs fixing.

As the above list is much smaller than the last one which has all been addressed, I'm extending the period of GAH.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed most of these, the exception being "Internal issues and debates" which is a brief summary section and does not contain anything controversial as far as I can tell. I could probably dig up some sources, but as far as 2 (b) I'd say we're covered. Cheers,  Skomorokh  06:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to pass this. The one big issue I noticed in scanning the notes was that the BBC's The Guide to Life, The Universe and Everything is referenced in a couple of places. This is a Wikipedia-style source written by memebrs of the public and is therefore not reliable. However I don't think the May day stuff is in doubt.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)