Wikipedia:Peer review/Socialist Studies (1989)/archive1

Socialist Studies (1989)

Since this article is in a more or less complete state now, I am nominating it for peer review.

An earlier version of this article was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party of Great Britain (Reconstituted)) on the grounds of non-notability and non-verifiability. The result was "no consensus" (defaulting to keep). I then rewrote the article completely with extensive citations from primary sources (i.e., material published by Socialist Studies itself). Since Socialist Studies basically defines itself in relation to the Socialist Party of Great Britain, I've also cited primary sources from the SPGB, though since the SPGB has (with one exception) never publically commented on Socialist Studies, the references are generally useful only to draw comparisons between the two groups. There are virtually no other secondary sources with any information of value; though there are brief mentions in things like court records and police reports, Socialist Studies usually gets no more than a footnote in scholarly works (well, two footnotes in the case of Perrin's book). I'm therefore still skeptical that this subject meets Wikipedia's notability and verifiability requirements, so please comment on notability and verifiability issues.

I especially want comments on possible neutrality/POV issues, because the article documents a political dispute, because the bulk of the information comes from Socialist Studies itself rather than from third-party commentaries, and because the article has only one principal author (me). (I previously solicited commentary on the article's talk page and via a {{POV-check}} tag, but I think I may get a better response here.) —Psychonaut 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the article. User:Green01 6:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

Lead needs expansion per WP:LEAD. Gzkn 12:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. How's the introductory paragraph now? —Psychonaut 01:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other then the lead, which needs expanding, I think it's very well written and informative. Well done. :) S.Skinner 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Check Results

The following are the contentions I have with the article in the feild of WP:NPOV concerns.

“

Some of these ex-members, comprising sixteen individuals, refused to recognise the expulsions and attempted to continue operating as the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which they claimed to have "reconstituted".

”

Possibly biased wording there, with the quotation marks.

“

Socialist Studies adopted the object and principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and thus purports to hold that party's general ideology and stance on most social, economic, and political issues.

”

Purports could be a loaded word here. Perhaps "claims" is a little better here?

“

Despite calling for the establishment of socialist political parties, Socialist Studies believes that such parties should not engage in political action which requires use of or active cooperation with "capitalist law" or "bourgeois legislation".

”

Should explain this a little more to be a little more balanced.

“

Socialist Studies accuses the SPGB of coming under the influence of anarchist ideas and not sufficiently emphasising the parliamentary aspect of the socialist revolution.

”

This one is loaded enough to either require a significant citation or be retracted, IMHO.

Other than that, it looks pretty good. Kudos to the editors here. Hope my comments have been helpful. Cheers! -- ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respond to your four points as follows. Please let me know if the explanations, changes, and proposed changes are acceptable.

The word "reconstituted" is in quotes because it's a quotation, not because the writer is mocking it or thinks it's dubious. I've added a citation to their "Reconstituted SPGB" pamphlet immediately after this quotation to clarify things. Does this clear up the matter?
OK, I changed "purports" to "claims" as per your suggestion.
I've significantly expanded this section with further explanations and citations.
The two citations given at the end of this two-sentence paragraph are applicable to the entire paragraph, not just the second sentence. I therefore had the choice of repeating the same two citations after each sentence, or simply having one set of citations at the end of the paragraph. Do you believe I should have done the former? At any rate, this section does require expansion because Socialist Studies's claims about the SPGB's position are incorrect, or at least outdated. (The SPGB did at one point hold that the state would be abolished immediately upon the overthrow of class society, but that view was officially rescinded in the 1990s. I haven't yet had time to look up the references.)

—Psychonaut 21:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1: the usage of quotation marks like that tends to taken this way. The Ref helps a great deal there.

2: Thanks

3: Good work. Looks solid

4: just note this in the reference. - ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 22:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]