Wikipedia:Peer review/Politics/archive1

Politics

This article was only rated as Start-Class on the quality scale, despite being such an important topic, and was previously almost unsourced and contained large chunks of OR. In the last couple of days I've rewritten it and added sources, but it's still a little confusing, and contains a lot of material that's duplicated from Political power and the tripartite classification of authority. I think I've improved this article considerably, but it needs a bit more work to get up to GA/FA standard. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse

(and many non-human) - that animals have what we call politics is a pretty strong statement. Expand, and cite, or remove.
Political science, ... - unbold.
Political Philosophy, Public Administration - uncapitalize
Aristotle asserts in Politics - I know what you mean, but considering the title of this article, specify that it's a book
Thomas Hobbes ... proposed - contrast with Aristotle, above; pick a tense for statements made in books, and be consistent
left-right - cite, and specify that this is fairly recent. Hobbes, Aristotle, etc., didn't mention such a divide. What divides, if any, they mention? Monarchist/populist maybe?
Certain politicians have tried to transcend - frankly, most politicians try to transcend, saying they are "a uniter not a divider", all that. Unless you have a really good set of sources, I'd leave that out, and certainly not mention specific politicians in an article on all politics, reads biased. Just saying Morin is more notable than De Gaulle is going to get you a lot of opposition, for no good gain.
Authoritarian-Libertarian - need more than one sentence for a subsection
Machiavelli's The Prince is pretty important, no? Just a suggestion
Some within ... various ways - be specific in each case; who says, and which ways, per WP:WEASEL. End with a period. It is also often considered a good idea to have more than one sentence in a subsection. :-)...
and sociological perspectives. - is this the same as Pragmatic, per that subsection? Specify.
May want to mention the roles of politics in popular modern and ancient forms of govt: monarchy, democracy, communism... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit

The page begins with "Approaches to the study of politics," but Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, etc. were not just studying politics, they were coming up with political theories. I would suggest that the page begin with some short "Definitions" (such as "politics," "republic," "democracy," etc.) so that the reader has some basic terms to work with and then move on to "Political theories" that would encompass Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. in subsections. The "Related concepts" should be discussed in terms of the political philosophers and philosophies when relevant and defined when necessary. This is what needs the most work right now, as I see it.
"Political power" should come after the "Political philosophy" section (the section on "Political spectrums" should come later). Might Michel Foucault be a good representative of the postmodern view of power (Discipline and Punish)?
The bulletted lists should be changed into prose, for example, in the "authority" section.
The "other considerations" section does not seem necessary at this time.
Of course, when you are tired of writing, you can add pictures. :)
And, of course, you already have all of my comments about the sources.
By the way, just to make everything more difficult, I have feeling Eastern philosophers also discuss politics. You might add a tag to the article saying that it does not represent a worldwide view (it is no reflection on yourself - no one can know everything). That might alert someone who does something to add to it. Awadewit 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]