Talk:Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/GA1
Appearance
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
- 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.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Provides extensive criticism of the book, positive and negative, in the "Reception" section
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- 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)
- Thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good article, with an editor who is quickly responsive to feedback. I enjoyed reading it, too. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 05:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail: