Talk:Sentientist Politics

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sentientist Politics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Checklist

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:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

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

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   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:

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• Thanks for your work on this article. A substantial part of the way through my review, I realized that you're both mentioned by name in this article, and are cited a number of times, including for a substantial chunk of the reception section. We've worked together with no issues before, so I hope you don't mind my asking a blunt question; this is a COI that goes a bit beyond the details disclosed on your userpage; are you sure you are the best person to be nominating this for GA status? I'm going to leave some comments here anyhow, but I'll be quite honest and say it makes me a little uncomfortable.
  • Yes, this is a very fair comment. I know Cochrane well (though did not when I started writing about his work on Wikipedia), and we are currently colleagues at the University of Sheffield (though were not when I started writing about his work on Wikipedia). The relevant guidelines do permit me, as a (the guideline's term, not mine) "subject matter expert", to work on this topic and to cite myself, subject to normal rules about NPOV. I have tried to follow this unscrupulously, and have downplayed mentions of myself in the article prose. For example, O'Sullivan's comment gets a longer mention than mine. (In case it's useful to know, while I am sympathetic to a lot of what Cochrane says, but I am critical of him in other areas. For example, I am not a cosmopolitan in the sense that he is. I also note, with the caveat that this does not prove that there's no issue, that I have had some articles go through FAC successfully with self-citations.) Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Thinking on this, a possible solution: if you're concerned (despite my comments above) an option would be that you fail the review at this time, I seek out a few uninvolved editors who may have some interest in the topic, have them take a good look through, and then co-nominate with them? It won't change the fact that there are self-citations, but it would allow a further pair of eyes to help ensure NPOV. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @J Milburn: Having another pair of eyes seems like a fair solution to me. Given the circumstances the citations aren't a problem; it's more having someone independent judge due weight (which I could do, if I had the time, but then I'd want someone else to review). I'm happy to place the article on hold instead of failing it; that way it remains in my in-tray, so to speak, and I'd be happy to look at it again when you're ready for me to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not very comfortable with the use of Cochrane as a reference for statements about Cochrane's own status in the field (ref 1, possibly elsewhere). There seem to be other citations used there; are they not adequate?
  • Yes, also fair. I'll fix that. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Removed. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• In the rest of the intro section, you've again used Cochrane as a source for summarizing his previous work. I have little doubt that your summary is accurate, but again, I'd prefer a different source; surely a few reviews should be available?
  • Yes, I can do that. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• "Further work on international dimensions of animal rights included a 2013 symposium in the journal Global Policy that Cochrane edited on protecting animals across borders" Nothing incorrect here, but a bit hard to parse; could you rephrase?
  • I struggled with that sentence. Split. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• The synopsis is very long, coming in at close to 1600 words. Part of the reason for this, I think, is that you've tried to summarize every chapter; and I don't know if that's feasible in an article of reasonable length.
  • I think I do have to summarise each chapter, but may be able to do so more concisely. Leave it with me. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• I think you could look through the entire article with a view to linking the more technical terms; it feels a little under-linked at the moment.
  • Ok, thanks - again, leave it with me! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far; I've left some quick replies above and will start making changes to the article soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok - made a few small fixes, and I'll get to the bigger ones in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Your comments have been very useful, but I may not be able to get to them super quickly. (I am a little oversubscribed on Wikipedia right now.) I'd also like to do a little restructuring. Perhaps the thing to do is close the review now, leave me to make the changes you've suggested and do some restructuring (which may help with the NPOV matter), and then I submit to PR, contacting a few editors to take a look concerning the NPOV issue. Then I resubmit here. Naturally enough, this might all take a few months, but I'm in no hurry. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. It pains me to fail an article when it's obviously close to meeting the criteria, but I defer to your wishes here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate your time. And don't worry about the "fail" thing. I like to think of closing reviews rather than failing articles! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)