Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Analytical Marxism/archive1

Analytical Marxism

Well-written, well-researched. Sir Paul 06:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good, but I have a few minor suggestions before I Support:

Expand the lead, and sort out those red links in the lead.
Change the notes into proper footnotes using the note template and ref template.
Images? Anything that could represent the subject? They are not required, but are a good feature of an article.
The Criticisms section doesn't look wikified.
The Bibliography needs ISBN numbers for the books listed.

— Wackymacs 08:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Article does not provide enough context, and assumes too much knowledge of philosophy. A featured article will be read by people who have never taken a philosophy course, and has to provide enough information that they can make it through the article without having to detour into other articles. One of the biggest problems is that this article does not explain what Marxism is, or why anyone would be defending it. Other terms that are used without sufficient explanation include analytical philosophy and historical materialism. This article needs significant material added before it is sufficiently accessible. -- Creidieki

How I wish I could support this article; the topic is important and little known. However, I must oppose the article in its current state. I have the following suggestions, which, if implemented, would change my vote:

Many more citations are needed: in the "Justice and Power" subsection of the "Criticisms" section; most definitely in the "Denouement" section; and in the "Beginnings" section.
Please give more background in the "Beginnings" section. An overview of early analytic philosophy's methods and methodological presuppositions would be very helpful in this regard. More attention should be given to Popper, especially The Open Society and Its Enemies.
If the group called itself "Non-Bullshit Marxism," then what did they consider "Bullshit Marxism" to be? (I assume the answer is something like: Marxism as it morphed into Poststructuralism.)
When you deal with the way in which analytical Marxists dealt with, defended, or modified Marx's theories, you must explain what those theories were to Marx and to Marxists before the analytical Marxists. This is a problem throughout.
Phrases like "Hegelian obscurantism" are clear to people with a philosophical background, but they'll be opaque to everybody else. You've got to clarify these. This, again, is a problem throughout.
Many of these sections simply need to be greatly expanded—e.g., the "Justice" section; you've really got to spend more time explaining G.A. Cohen's theories as well as the general intellectual background in which the analytical Marxists worked. This is why you've got to explain what Rawls argued for (as well as Nozick, who, according to Cohen's own works, greatly influenced him).
Please make the "Method" subsection in the "Criticisms" section clearer. I just don't quite understand it, as it is. And remember to add citations as you expand.

I don't want to leave you with the impression that I dislike this article. I don't! I hope these suggestions will help you improve the article and get it featured. Best, Hydriotaphia 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the constructive criticism. I hope other wikipedians will help me improve the article with the suggestions above. Sir Paul 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]