Jump to content

Talk:Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 06:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    • I'm not sure if "authored by two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Anthony Lewis" counts as Puffery, but I'd sure like to see it shortened to "by Anthony Lewis", or, say, "by American author Anthony Lewis".
    • "A repeated theme emphasized in the book": isn't it a common attribute of themes that they are "repeated" and "emphasized"?
    • The article is awfully quote heavy, and I think a lot of the quotations would be better paraphrased and summarized.
    • I can see you've cut back on the use of quotes, but it still comes off as quote-heavy to me. There are a lot of instances where, I think, paraphrasing the quote would lend itself to smoother reading:
    • current: In an interview with the author, Deborah Solomon of The New York Times Magazine observed, "This has been a theme in American politics, the use of fear-mongering to justify repression."
    • paraphrased: In an interview with the author, Deborah Solomon of The New York Times Magazine observed that American politics has frequently used fear to justify repression.
    ...which, aside from being a little shorter, reads more smoothly. Unless there is a reason to use a particular quote (you don't want to paraphrase "There is nothing to fear but fear itself", for example), I think you'll find that the prose is a lot easier and more enjoyable to read if you don't chop up the text with frequent quotes.
    • You might want to cut down on duplicate links (see WP:REPEATLINK). There is a script you can use to help catch them. I thought there was a tool somewhere that did the same thing without adding a script, but I can't seem to find it. In particluar, you link The New York Review of Books twice in the lead alone.
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Provides extensive criticism of the book, positive and negative, in the "Reception" section
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    1 fair use image for infobox with appropriate FUR; 2 images from Commons
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Good article, with an editor who is quickly responsive to feedback. I enjoyed reading it, too. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 05:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]