Talk:Karl Marx/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
~~Most of the prose is excellent, however the "inspiration" section is too technical.~~ ~~I would like a better explanation of Soho if possible, its more than just "a district" in central London.~~

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
No issues.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
~~There needs to be a full reference for #132, Ibid and Wheen somewhere in the article. I'm not too worried about the reference styles matching.~~ All fixed.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
I want to have a check at some of the online sources, but it looks fine
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
The introduction to the Philosophy and Social thought section needs expanding
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
~~I don't think the title "Marxism as the ideology of totalitarian states" meets NPOV.~~ Discussed below.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
~~I'm going to check this later.~~ All fine.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
An excellent article.

~~I'll try to go over the smaller, technical issues soon.~~ I think I addressed the small items. Two questions:

How would you like the "Philosophy and Social thought" section expanded? I am out of ideas what else is relevant, having included things mentioned in several intro texts. I am open for suggestions, of course - but they'd need to be more detailed than just "this section should be expanded." Because to such a criticism I'll answer with the elaborate "I don't think so" :D

The neutrality of the section you mentioned was discussed above and I think the consensus was to let it be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief explanation of Soho, although I am not sure if it is really relevant here. Still, seems harmless enough. I rereaed inspirations and it seems fine to me, I am not sure how to make it "less technical". It seems an accessible read to me (jargon, when present, is hyperlinked, and doesn't seem to intense). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On Soho I just felt reading through the article that its significance would be lost on people who didn't know what it was and who didn't read the article - I think the new wording makes it clearer. On the new sections if they've been discussed I'm not going to worry too much about it, I'm happy to drop that.
- On the Philosophy and Social thought the bit I thought was too short was the introduction - I think I missed that the next sections are subsections of it on my first reading :o.
- On the inspirations section I'll come up with a better explanation over the next day or so, I felt when I read it that it wasn't up to the standard of the rest of the article and used more philosophical jargon. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS Wheen 2000, and Ibid still need fixing so they point at a full reference. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirations section

I can follow the rest of the article quite nicely, but as a non-expert: "Hegel's dialectical method and historical orientation" isn't clear to me, "the classical political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo" doesn't really make much sense to me either.

"Marx's view of history, which came to be called historical materialism (controversially adapted as the philosophy of dialectical materialism by Engels and Lenin) certainly shows the influence of Hegel's claim that one should view reality (and history) dialectically" for example could do with simplifying. Its a very interesting idea (once you read dialectically) but you shouldn't need to to get a general feel for what the sentence means.

"However, Hegel had thought in idealist terms, and Marx sought to rewrite dialectics in materialist terms." - what are materialism and idealism, to me they are philosphoical buzzwords - there's no need to go into a lot of detail but a brief explanation of them would be good.

"utopian socialists" - even that article doesn't really explain it.

That should be a start - and the rest of the section looks fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

There have been a fair few edits to the page and the user who requested the review has been active. These issues are really quite minor but they do need fixing. I can't fix the references because I don't know what they should be, and I don't know enough about Philosophy to fix the other issues. It would be a shame to decline this page, as it is very good, but if the issues aren't fixed I will do so. I'd like to see significant progress next week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy for a few days, my apologies. I've fixed the refs. I've simplified the Hegel's sentence, but the Smith's and Ricardo is simple and linked to political economy already; the cited source does not say much more about it. I am again not certain how to rewrite the next sentence (I should note I am a sociologist, not a philosopher, and I find all of the "dialectic" discussions rather a pointless buzz anyway...). I clarified the next sentence, although I feel it was clarified already by the one that follows it, as well as the discussion in the bio section. Utopian socialists are linked, and their views presented in the sentence (as the subject of what Marx is criticizing). I've tried to clarify that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :). I'll look a bit later and see what I think. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK Looking better, "French social and socialogical thought" is still a bit mysterious to me and needs explaining better. Additionally the "Philosophy and social thought" section needs a little more of an introduction so its a real paragraph. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, now just that introduction. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened this to French socialist thought per source and linked to History of the Left in France. I also expanded the short section you pointed to. I hope it is more clear now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, its now a GA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]