Talk:Animal Rights Without Liberation

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Animal Rights Without Liberation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 20:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw this article and thought that it looked very interesting; it was only then that I noticed that the nominator was User:J Milburn. There could arguably be some minor conflict of interest as Josh has recently passed three GA nominations of my own but I nevertheless believe that I can undertake a fair, unbiased review of this one, if Josh agrees that I am an acceptable candidate for the job ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

More than happy- I know you've written high-quality articles on recent academic books, so I am sure you would be in a good position to fairly judge this one. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2015 (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.	Generally this is all very clear and concise (at least, as much as one can be when dealing with fairly complicated philosophical and ethical issues). Just a few points; in the lede, perhaps you could stipulate the nationality of the author, and "which it argued" seems to be missing a word. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) You use the spelling "nonhuman"; would "non-human" be a little easier on the eye ? Of course, if the former is standard spelling within the field then I would concede to that convention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) I chose "nonhuman" specifically because it's what Cochrane uses in the book. There's a moderate amount of controversy about these kinds of issues; personally, I'd rather use "nonhuman animal", rather than "animal", throughout, but I thought it would be more in-line with Wikipedia's typical style to favour simply "animal". Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) I would also favour "nonhuman animals" throughout, but I see your point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "as part of the series Critical Perspectives on Animals" - would "their series" be more appropriate here ? It's not a big deal either way, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Good idea. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) "Cochrane continued to work on questions of animal rights after the completion of his doctorate, publishing articles on the subject in Utilitas[4] and Political Studies[5] in 2009, the latter of which provoked responses from Garner in 2011[6] and philosopher John Hadley in 2013,[7] and publishing his first book, An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, through Palgrave Macmillan." I would recommend carving this sentence into two; perhaps the bit on his first book could be separated into its own sentence ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Names like Immanuel Kant are dropped without any explanation of who they are; I appreciate that Kant is a big name in Western philosophy but I think that something like "The Englightenment-era German philosopher Immanuel Kant" would make things a little easier for the reader. However, this is not a major issue at this stage. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) I'll leave it there for tonight but there's probably more to come. This article is good stuff! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) The paragraphs in the "Application" section are pretty long, and although that's not really a problem for me personally I think that quite a few editors are going to prefer them cut down in size. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC) I am aware of this- right now, I have one paragraph per chapter, which I think is quite neat, but I do intend to trim down the paragraphs a bit before FAC (which won't be soon). Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) In the prose there is a reference to "human non-persons" - what does this mean ? Criminals ? Brain dead people ? It would be great if you could add a few extra words here to explain this as I think that quite a few readers will share my ignorance on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Babies and the individuals with severe cognitive disabilities are the usual examples. (Criminals are typically persons, but they may not be very nice ones.) I've added to the sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) "therapeutic hunting" - could you put in a link here, perhaps ? I don't really understand what this is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC) I've clarified what is meant- it doesn't seem to be a term in wide use. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.	I'm not a big fan of the style of referencing used; I don't think that it's particularly aesthetically pleasing, but that is my own personal idiosyncrasy and in no way compromises the GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) I agree that it doesn't look great. I'll have a fiddle. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) I've remodeled the referencing based on your article on Murray- I like the way that one looked. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
	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).	I would suggest adding a reference after "acting as an advisor." - I'm guessing that it would be Cochrane 2012, p. vii ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) I would definitely advise the nominator to archive some of the URLs used (using something like WebCite or WayBack machine), lest those sites succumb to link rot in the future (which I assume they ultimately will). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, good idea. I'll get on this when I get a chance. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) All web sources have been archived. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm not keen on the way that the images have all been aligned to the right, and think that it would be more aesthetically pleasing if they were scattered around a bit more. However, this is another issue where it is not an issue that would affect whether I passed this as a GA or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Agreed; my worry is that people will be viewing on different-sized screens. I'll have a play. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) I've lost one picture, but hopefully the new arrangement will be more pleasing. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Generally this is really good stuff. I would like to see a few of the prose issues that I mentioned dealt with, and after that then I see no barriers for passing this as a GA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks so much for taking this on- I've made some of the smaller fixes and will have a play around with some other stuff in the next few days. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Ok, I think I have dealt with all of your comments, with the exception of the paragraphs issue, which is something I will be looking into when I revisit the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC) That's great, thanks Josh. I'm happy to pass this one now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks so much for the review- thoroughly appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

New review in Society and Animals

doi:10.1163/15685306-12341412. Eva Meijer writes that Cochrane "shows that there is an underexplored territory between" established welfarist and abolitionist camps, but "is less convincing in its criticism of existing animal rights theories and in defending the claim that nonhuman animals have no interest in liberation." She has formal objections to his conception of rights, and more empirically objects to his "narrow view of animal agency" and of "political human-animal relationships in which the animals are indeed not autonomous nor have a chance of changing this."

I could read it more carefully and take a shot at integrating it, but I suspect others around here are more qualified. FourViolas (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant! I'll making integrating this a priority. I have a half-eye on FAC; maybe a few hours' work could push the article to where it needs to be. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I've also added a review from Radical Philosophy Review. Between the Species and the Marx and Philosophy Review of Books also have reviews. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)