Talk:The Plot to Hack America/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 23:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

servers were hacked by culprits seeking: "culprits" is not the right word here; perhaps just "by someone seeking" would do.
The "Summary" section is wordier than it needs to be in several places. You don't need to say "In his chapter", for example; the reader knows we're reading a summary. Instead of "Nance recounts learning of" we can just say "Nance learnt of"; and instead of "The Plot to Hack America delves further", say "Nance delves further"; instead of "candidate for President", say "him". I'd suggest going through the summary and trimming this sort of redundancy; it's wearying for a reader.
Nance identifies Putin's stratagem to elect Trump as U.S. president: not quite right; perhaps "Nance identifies Putin's strategy for electing".
hacking into the DNC to acquire their personal information: the DNC doesn't have personal information, its members do.
identified as a member of the U.S. Republican Party in a similar vein as Colin Powell: what does this mean, exactly? His political beliefs were similar to those of Powell?
written out of a base desire as an intelligence expert: suggest cutting "base".
he understood that such an operation must have been sanctioned...by Putin: this is in Wikipedia's voice, so is it generally agreed to be true, or is it a matter of dispute? If this is Nance's opinion, it should be "considered", rather than a more definite verb such as "understood". The same comment applies to the last sentence in the paragraph.
You quote no negative reviews; surely there were some?
Nance traced Putin's rise with the descent of democracy in Russia in favor and oligarchy ruling class: something wrong grammatically here.
who exemplified on Twitter perspectives that U.S democratic institutions were not successful: I think I know what this means, but it's not very clearly phrased; suggest rewording.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor, are you planning to work on this? If not I'll fail the article in another week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie: User:Sagecandor seems to be inactive on Wikipedia currently. I hope you don't mind, but I've tried to improve the article based on your suggestions. I trimmed the summary, and reworded

As a case study he cited a Russian political scientist with views favored by Putin, Aleksandr Dugin, who exemplified on Twitter perspectives that U.S democratic institutions were not successful. to
As a case study he cited Aleksandr Dugin, a Russian political scientist with views favored by Putin, whose tweets expound perspectives that U.S democratic institutions were not successful.

Yexstorm2001 already implemented your suggested rewordings. No one has addressed the issue of there being no negative reviews yet. I haven't been able to find any, but will continue my search. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bennv3771, this is a pleasant surprise -- I was expecting to have to fail this in the next few days, as I could see Sagecandor was inactive. Your changes (and Yexstorm2001's) look good; I'm promoting this article to GA. Thanks for doing the fixes. As it happens, I am also the reviewer for several other books nominated by Sagecandor, as you can see by searching for Sagecandor's name on WP:GAN. Are you interested in helping with any of those? They are all in a similar state -- good basic information, but not very well-written. Mostly what's needed is prose clean up. No worries if you aren't interested, but I thought it was worth checking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie: I'll have a look at those other nominations. Fyi, I've scoured the web to look for negative reviews for this book but have come up short. Seems to me there really aren't any notable negative reviews. But I'll keep an eye out if I come across any in the future. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]