Talk:Anarchism and Friedrich Nietzsche/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
starting review Reviewer: NimbusWeb (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is generally a well written article. Occasionally the prose could require slight modification. At the beginning of the Emma Goldman section, for example, we read ""can be summarised when she manifests in her biography.." The sense is that a paragraph from that autobiography is about to be quoted but "manifests" is an unusual word in this context. The article generally is a factually accurate analysis of various anarchist theorists who have drawn intellectually upon Nietzsche. The section on Camus seemed quite strained and might be challenged as I'm not sure it convincingly makes the case that Nietzsche rather than anarchist thought in general was influential on the former's views. There are appropriate references and in line citations. There's no original research that I could detect. It's generally neutral in tone but might benefit from more reference to criticism of Nietzschian anarchism both from a philosophical perspective and from the POV of the (allegedly) deleterious impact it might have on the willingness of citizens in a democracy to undertake social responsibilities. It is stable. It has multiple appropriate and interesting illustrations. It complies with the style manual. Overall I judge it has already reached GA status but could benefit from looking at the issues raised in this note.

You cannot pass this article untill it conforms better to WP:LEAD - the lead must be a summary of all the content of the article so that the lead can stand alone - the information of each section of the article should be briefly summarised in the lead. This lead is much too short for such a long article.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Second opinion: this reviewer is requesting another editor's input on the article.NimbusWeb (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd opinion I have not fully read the article yet so these thoughts are based on overall impression:

• I agree with user Maunus that the lead needs to be greatly expanded. Under the current GA Criteria MOS compliance is weighted heavily and the lead is part of the MOS standards.
• There is a source tag in the Albert Camus photo that should be addressed.
• There are four dead links in the reference section and several other dead external links. See [1] here for details.
• Per WP:ACCESS the images should attempt to be placed solely within the section in which they apply. Four of the six images spill over into subsequent sections.
• Most of the Emma Goldman and Frederica Monstseny sub sections are quotes, see WP:quote for formatting instructions and general use of quotes guidelines. In fact as I scan through the article I see many quotes that do not conform with MOS guidelines regarding quotations.

Overall I feel as though there are several issues that should be addressed regarding MOS compliance and referencing. If further information is required please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to take a closer look or answer any questions raised. H1nkles (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold for a week pending work. Once the above issues are addressed I will happily do a more thorough content review. H1nkles (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Several issues with MOS compliance specifically over use of quotations, image location/size, and lead.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Several dead links in references and external links.

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Unknown until a fuller content review is undertaken

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Unknown until a fuller content review is undertaken

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Unknown until a fuller content review is undertaken

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   all but one image is fine, one image has been tagged needing source information

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I found several issues outlined in the review above. I have only taken a high-level look at the article, a more thorough review will be undertaken once the issues are addressed. H1nkles (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The issues raised in this second review have not been addressed. As such I will not promote the article at this time. Please use this review as a guide to help improve the article for a future run at GA. If you would like a more indepth review please contact me on my talk page. I will not be watching this article so comments should be left on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)