Wikipedia:Peer review/New World Order (political)/archive1

New world order

This is a solid, comprehensive, well-cited article. It needs some work on NPOV, copy editing, and points where things can be better explained to those not familiar with the politics. Thanks for your comments and edits. —thames

Well it sounds like you already know what needs to be worked upon to bring it up to FA quality, so I'm not quite clear why you're bringing it here for peer review. :) The bulleted lists need replacing with inline text. Thanks. — RJH 23:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I wrote it, I'm not exactly sure where others might find things that are POV--I just sorta assume that they're in there. Also, as I wrote it, and am familiar with the politics, I don't know exactly where others might get lost. So I was hoping the Peer Review folks could point out those passages to me. Do you think the bulleted lists are less readable than paragraphs? <nowiki></nowiki>—[[User:Thames|thames]] 15:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, its just that I've been told the FA people like to harp about bulleted lists for whatever reason. They seem to prefer prose. — RJH 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good article. My following comments mostly concern referencing (I expected more from an article about a statement and reference all direct quotes), images (would a map help?) and appropriateness of lists. In the opening, Where it says "many commentators have applied the term" please provide at least one reference of this happening, and if the word "many" is to stay in the sentence please provide more than one (independent) references. In "Historical usage" can a reference be provided for the New York Times interview? Why semi-colons in the list of international institutions? can there be an expansion, beyond the one-paragraph, on examples (what they meant by...) of the phrase being used to describe this set of international institutions? What purpose does the "AtlanticCharter.jpg" image serve? Please clarify this sentence, "The first press reference to the phrase came from Russo-Indian talks, 21 November 1988." The talks occurred in one day? can "press reference" be made a little more specific (russian press, indian press? newspaper? tv?). The first reference doesn't link to the reference section. If a list is going to be used make the points parallel (grammatically) and do not break it up with a long quote in the middle. All quotes need references. The second bullet list, "The new world order seemed to imply:" is this according to Time Magazine? change "shifting to "a shift" to make it parallel and why the semi-colons and capital letters? No one-sentence parapraghs (this isn't a novel), it breaks up the discussion (there are two one-sentence paragraphs on the book A World Transformed). The bullet list in the "Malta Conference" would probably be better discussed as prose with an explanation of what each point means/implies. The image "Image:Georgebush.jpg" doesn't seem appropriate (or useful), any images of him from the Malta Conference? I'm not sure if this is correct procedure by perhaps place the references to press articles by the title of the magazine/newspaper (ie Time) instead of at the end of a paragraph to make the referencing more obvious. Is the "Toward a New World Order speech" bullet list really a list? reads more like a real paragraph. is this speech referenced (is it available online?) Who is the "American left" (a newspaper?) and when did they say "rationalization for imperial ambitions"? Why do the LA Times and The Economist articles get their own subsections? Can the "Presidential Studies Quarterly" summary be referenced? I'm not sure if that is the proper usage of a See also section. --maclean25 07:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard punctuation form to separate list elements by a semicolon when the list is denoted by a colon. I'll work on expanding that section.
I put in the Atlantic Charter image simply because it was one of the only images of the creation of the post-WWII "new world order" that exists on wikipedia.
I've fixed the first footnote to point correctly.
I'll do what I can to convert those lists into paragraphs, thus circumventing parallel construction and blockquote problems. However, it is quite clear that the blockquote in the first list comes from Gorbachev's speech the UN General Assembly, as that whole section is based on that speech.
Clarified the Time Magazine "seemed to imply" sentence.
I'll see what I can do about integrating the A World Transformed bits into larger paragraphs once i've converted the lists into paragraphs.
The George Bush image is there simply because there are no better images available for the Malta Conference. Gorbachev has his own image, so Bush ought to have one too. It's hard to get images when discussing a phrase. Any suggestions?
I've added a wikisource link to new world order materials, including the full text of the gorbachev UN speech, various transcripts from the Malta Conference, and the full text of a Bush's speech to the joint session of congress.
The "American left" and "American right" are characterizations used by the New York Times article (which is footnoted). I've clarified this in the sentence.
The Economist and LA Times article get their own sections because of the prescient insights or interesting future parallels not seen in any of the other articles at the time.
The PSQ is footnoted, but only at the end of the last paragraph discussing the contents of the PSQ article (footnote 22). I thought it would be overkill to add the same footnote to every paragraph which discusses the PSQ material. But I can certainly do that if necessary.
More edits to come.—thames 19:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]