Jump to content

Talk:Liberalism/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Seyyed(t-c) 10:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
Fukuyama's quotation is gone.UBER (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The following sentence is not supported by the source: "Moderates were identified with liberalism or liberal conservatism whereas progressives could fall under a number of left-wing camps, from liberalism and radicalism to republicanism and social democracy".[3] Kirchner draws the same distinction between conservative and radical liberals as other writers do then lists some of the labels that have been used. The term "social democrat" as a name for a liberal party is rare and Kirchner does not call "progressives" left-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. What do you think now?UBER (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete the sentence since the cleavage between conservative and radical liberals is already explained, and that fact that different names were applied to the two groups does not seem to help the article. In countries with monarchies republicans normally called themselves radicals. Some even called themselves "social democrats", e.g., the Italian Social Democratic Party, but this should not be confused with social democracy, or imply that radical liberals joined different camps - in fact they usually stayed in the same camp with conservative liberals, viz., the local liberal party. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone.UBER (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A. References to sources:
    I put "citation needed" tag wherever I found source should be added.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    • The Lead looks good, however I prefer adding a sentence at the end of the article which include major rivals of Liberalism after cold war such as Conservatism, fundamentalism and Authoritarianism.
     Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 11:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add something about criticism as a subsection under Philosophy.
See below.UBER (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been satisfied yet. Can you expand that part.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using Google scholar as well as google books to improve that section:Critiques of liberalism and Critique of Liberalism. These are some examples which you can use: Political Liberalism and Its Internal Critiques: Feminist Theory, Communitarianism, and Republicanism, The politics of voice: liberalism and social criticism from Franklin to Kingston, The Radical Critique of Liberalism: In Memory of a Vision
I have added more criticism from conservatives and from Marx, the former about how liberalism undermines traditional social values and the latter about how the liberal distinction between society and the individual is meaningless and suppresses class struggle.UBER (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is a question of placement because there is already detailed content about liberalism and secularism under Impact and influence:
Beyond free markets and constitutional government, early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state. As heirs of the Enlightenment, liberals believed that any given social and political order emanated from human interactions, not from divine will. Many liberals were openly hostile to religious belief itself, but most concentrated their opposition to the union of religious and political authority—arguing that faith could prosper on its own, without official sponsorship or administration from the state.
Personally I think this information is fine where it is because it concerns the impact of liberals on human history, but I'd have no problem putting it under Philosophy if you so wish.UBER (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put it under philosophy.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's there now.UBER (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Inception to revolution": There should be some description about social and economical situations during 17th and 18th centuries which led to growth of liberalism such as Urbanization and industrialization.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Focused:
    Article should focus on liberalism. The history section is full of irrelevant details which can be omitted such as details about American and French revolutions. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    History, United Kingdom, 17th century, Glorious revolution: Please add something about Bill of Rights 1689.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    American revolution:"The American colonies had been loyal British subjects for decades, but they declared independence in 1776 as a result of their dissatisfaction with British taxation policies. Military engagements in the American Revolution began in 1775 and were largely complete by 1781. After the war, the colonies held a Constitutional Convention in 1787 to resolve the problems stemming from the Articles of Confederation. The resulting Constitution of the United States settled on a republic. The American Revolution was an important struggle in liberal history," This section doesn't describe influence of Liberalism in American revolution. Some part of it is irrelevant. Please substitute irrelevant parts with Virginia Declaration of Rights and United States Bill of Rights.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  • Some of the phrasing could be edited for neutrality. Colonial rule described as "autocratic", taxation policies as "harsh", Locke as a "hero", the Two Treatises as "celebrated", Gladstone "one of the greatest British prime ministers", Canadian Liberals " affectionately known as the Grits"... "produced some of the most famous prime ministers". (All Canadian PMs are famous in Canada.) The term "radical" (and "agitation") should be avoided except when referring to actual "Radicals" or their ideology. Hartz's equivocation about the liberalism of Puritans and Southerners was addressed by later writers and should not be left as a problem. The New Deal is not normally described as a "social liberal program". The theory that the move away from Keynsianism was temporary and is now resurging is questionable. The US president should not be referred to as FDR. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See below.UBER (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it stable?
     Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  3. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
I've added a sentence about opposition to liberalism in the lead and cut out some extraneous material from History per your suggestions. As for Philosophy: it already contains the information for your proposed subsections, so I've retitled them to reflect your request. For example, Relation to other ideologies included criticism from feminism, conservatism, Christian Democracy, etc. I've retitled that section to Criticism and support to better reflect its content. I could add a little bit more about socialist critiques against liberalism though.
How do you propose to integrate the content on Fukuyama? I don't think it's a particularly big issue because that quotation is meant to highlight the importance of liberalism in modern politics, not to start a tit-for-tat over how Fukuyama's views have changed over the years.UBER (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let us discuss about this issue in review page of History of Liberalism. I put a comment there. I can explain my view against this quotation there.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Fukuyama quotation per your advice.UBER (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and corrected the problems identified by Deuces. I just wanted clarification on a few things. Are you referring to the sentence in the lead about the revolutions when you talk about colonial rule and autocracy? If so, I really don't think there's anything POV about the comment, but I'd be open to persuasion. The Hartz statement is not meant to present a problem; it's meant to highlight the diversity of liberalism.UBER (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Autocracy refers to a system of government where one person has unlimited power. That was clearly not the case in the British Empire where the King was subject to the law - both parliament and the courts. John Adams e.g. complained that the British parliament should have no power to legislate on behalf of the colonies. Calling France an autocracy may be a problem too because Louis had called the Estates General. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've replaced those words with others. Tell me if you think the new terms are more acceptable.UBER (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It now says absolutist. But absolutism was challenged in France by the calling of the Estates General, and in the UK by the Glorious Revolution. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose instead? We're heading into semantics again. All that part attempts to do is convey a simple point: liberalism opposes arbitrary and dictatorial rule. Come up with whatever word you want to explain that basic idea (perhaps dictatorial?).UBER (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article says, "In England, a massive civil war led to the execution of King Charles I in 1649. Parliament ultimately succeeded—with the Glorious Revolution of 1688—in establishing a limited and constitutional monarchy". Then it says, "The American Revolution... used liberal philosophy to justify the violent overthrow of absolutist rule...." Do you not see a contradiction? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well not if you're adopting the perspective of the American colonies, although that's not made clear in the statement. I'm open to changing the terminology. That's why I asked you for another suggestion. Got any ideas?UBER (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was the colonists' POV, or more accurately the 1/3 of colonists who supported the revolution, then it should say so. I believe the term widely used was "tyranny". But you might say, "used liberal philosophy to justify independence". Incidentally, saying that a revolution used philosophy is clumsy - it was the revolutionaries. And "a massive civil war" could be changed to "civil war". The Four Deuces (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word tyranny is probably better because that sentence covers the French Revolution too. Now it refers to tyrannical rule. I've also implemented your other proposed changes.UBER (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from another reviewer

[edit]

Just two things about the referencing.

  • There are some areas that are inadequately referenced. For example, there are no inline cites at all in the para beginning "The early messenger for that movement was the English philosopher John Locke,..."
  • There are references in the list at the end that are not actually used in the footnotes. They should be stripped out - if you don't want to lose them altogether, I would move them to the talk page as a list of possible refs not currently cited in the text.

Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph has received some citations now. I hesitate to cite claims that are painfully obvious and mundane. One person complained in the article's recent FAC that I overcited. Anyway, the only uncited paragraph in the article now is that introductory part about liberalism in Asia that mentions the active liberal organizations in the content. In other words, it's nothing controversial. If you see anything else that could use citations, please let me know.
You're definitely right about the references, and that happened because I removed a lot of extraneous content in an effort to reduce the article's size, but I never removed works that weren't used for citations. My personal preference is to leave them there and retitle the section as References and further reading, or something to that effect. Some of those works are pretty important, even though they're not cited, and it would help readers to see them at the very least. If you insist that they should be completely removed, however, I'll gladly do that as well. Just let me know what you think.UBER (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I'm one of those editors who will never complain about over-citing :-) Re the refs at the end: OK, I would separate them into a "further reading" section (not a subsection of footnotes / references). For me, the goal should be that a reader has an accurate picture of what works were used in the actual construction of the article. so those not cited should be in a separate list. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed all unused reference works.UBER (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination

[edit]

I'd like to withdraw this nomination because it's not going anywhere. At this point we're just wasting time.UBER (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with my review, I can ask another reviewer to help us.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two other experienced editors have already looked at the article. You're the only one still proceeding, and doing so at an annoyingly slow pace to boot. I personally don't care about this nomination anymore. However, you could find another editor to work with you on your suggested improvements if you so wish. I suggest Rick Norwood because he's had much experience with this article over the years. Either give it one last go with him or just end this pointless journey.UBER (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who has involved in editing the article can't participate as a GA reviewer.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you reread what Uber said, Sa.vakilian, you'll see that he wasn't suggesting that I act as a review, but that I do work on the article following the reviewer's suggestions. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes precisely. Rick, if you want to work on this nomination, be my guest.UBER (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because UBER has negative view about my review, I asked another reviewer to join us. However I insist on my viewpoints.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking GAN as failed

[edit]

I am going to go ahead and mark this GAN as not having passed at this time, as I believe this nomination has gone along long enough without and progress, with other reviewers having already stepped in and given their views. It can be renominated for GA when the relevant issues have been addressed. Regards, –MuZemike 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberalism/GA1&oldid=1136362901"