Talk:Wage slavery/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Connolly15 (talk · contribs) 15:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well written, but is not concise and at times is repetitive (see discussion section). The article's clarity at times is questionable as well as it strays off topic at times. Generally, it is written more like an essay than an encyclopaedia.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article needs to make a number of changes to meet the MoS. See discussion section below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article does contain a large number of citations, but they are not all properly formatted.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are a number of examples of facts and figures not being cited (for example, the salaries of employees in Dubai. See general discussion below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See above. Facts are provided with no citations. I have not undertaken a careful review of the many sources quoted to ensure that WP:Synthesis is not at issue here, but this could be undertaken at a later stage when other issues are resolved.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No obvious issues here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article strays into unnecessary detail, such as defining terms that are already linked to (e.g. capitalism). The history of the wage slavery is also covered in a number of sections (even outside of the history section) in too great detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Appears to balance differing historical opinions well.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No obvious issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article would make an excellent essay, but needs work done to meet Wikipedia's MoS and other guidelines.

Discussion

General Comments

• The history section lacks focus.

• Terms are unnecessarily defined as if an essay is being presented that is disconnected from Wikipedia. For example, under “Capitalism” the first sentence says: “Wage slavery as a concept can be a general criticism of capitalism, defined as a condition in which a capitalist class (a minority of the population) controls all of the necessary non-human components of production (capital, land, industry, etc.) that workers use to produce goods.” It’s not necessary to define capitalism as it is linked.

LEDE

• WP:LEADCITE (MoS) - Although there is no rule against citations in the lede, in a good article they should be unnecessary as they would be redundant because the lede is meant to only summarize the article itself.

History

• WP:ITALIC (MoS) - Titles should be italicized (“De Officicus” by Cicero) … quotations should not be italicised (under section “Self-Identity problems and stress”)

• MOS:Quote (MoS) - Please review MoS requirements on quotations. The block quote from Cicero appears inappropriate given its length.

• WP:ALLEGED (MoS) - Avoid expressions of doubt such as, “The first articulate description of wage slavery was perhaps made by…”

”The use of the term wage slave by labor organizations may originate…”

• WP:EMBED (MoS) – The use of a list for the arguments comparing wage workers to chattel slavery does not meet MoS requirements.

• Section is repetitive – “The imagery of wage slavery was widely used by labor organizations during the mid-19th century to object to the lack of workers' self-management. However, it was gradually replaced by the more neutral term "wage work" towards the end of the 19th century, as labor organizations shifted their focus to raising wages.” Then later in the same section, “The term 'wage slavery' was widely used by labor organizations during the mid-19th century, but the structural changes associated with the later stages of industrial capitalism … Thus, "wage slavery" was gradually replaced by the more pragmatic term "wage work" towards the end of the 19th century.”

• WP:PEACOCK – avoid “peacock terms” such as in this case: “C. L. R. James made a famous argument that…”

• WP:WEASEL – avoid unsupported attributions – “Some supporters of wage and chattel slavery have linked …”

“Proponents of the viewpoint that”

• WP:JARGON – avoid jargon that is not defined or linked, such as “European radicalism”

Treatment in various economic systems

• First paragraph has only one citation?

Opinions on psychological effects

• No citations in the first two paragraphs of “Lower Wages” section

• No citations to support facts in “Lowest Wages” section.

---Note--- I have stopped reading in detail at this point. Hopefully the above examples give editors monitoring this article a sense of what, IMHO, needs to be tackled throughout the article. There are particular MoS concerns and the article does come off like more of any essay than an encyclopaedia.

I hope my comments are not considered overly harsh. I try to be as critical as possible to help improve the article. Please do consider resubmitting the article for review once it is compliant with the MoS.