Talk:Why Marx Was Right/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk · contribs) 19:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll take care of this one, I'll try and have some initial comments out in the next hour or so. This is my first GA review, so I'll try my best! -ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio

• Y Used Earwig's Copyvio detector, and the only visible ones were quotations from reviews in the §Reception section and the title of the book itself. Seems perfectly fine in this department.

Stability

• Y The page itself was created by one singular user in full a full 7 or so years after it was initially made as a redirect to Eagleton's page, and the talk page history was very short. This article is very much stable.

Prose / MoS

• ? A few minor prose issues here and there:
  • Second para of the lede, "a number of critics" -> "several/some/many critics have said"
  • Third para of the lede, "strength of argument" -> "the strength of argument"
    • Does "lacking strong arguments" work instead? I feel like "the strength of argument" is not quite right (like it would have to be "the strength of argument that reviewers expected" or something). — Bilorv (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
      • That should work just fine!ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Second para of Background, "prior to the economic crisis" -> "before the economic crisis" and "a number of reviewers" -> "several/some/many"
  • First para of Synopsis, "capitalist ones, and" -> "capitalist ones and"
  • Second para of Synopsis, "as determinist" -> "as being determinist" and "appropriate" -> "an appropriate"
  • Third para of Synopsis, "a human nature" -> "human nature" and "casual relationship on" -> "casual relationship with"
  • Fifth para of Synopsis, "independent from Marxism" -> "independent of Marxism", "interplay" -> "the interplay", and "under capitalism nature" -> "under capitalism, nature"
  • First para of Writing style, "mean that" -> "meant that"
  • First para of Subject matter, "surplus value" -> "surplus-value" and "idealism, because" -> "idealism because"
  • Second para of Subject matter, "Soviet Union, and" -> "Soviet Union and" and "selective portrayal of facts" -> "the selective portrayal of facts"
• Aside from these, however, the article was very well written.

Referencing

• Y All the citations and references are from trustable and verifiable sources, and there's plenty of inline citations. Very good.

POV

• Y Maintains a pretty even balance of the positive and negative aspects of the book — seems fine to me.

Original research

• Y Doesn't look like it, unless the nominator is secretly Eagleton himself.

Focus / scope / coverage / completeness

• Y The article covers all the key content needed for a book like Why Marx Was Right and seems to thoroughly detail them all.

Media

• Y Ever piece of media on the article is freely licensed, aside from the book cover, which is fine to use in the context of the article.

Conclusion

Aside from the few minor grammatical changes specified in the given section, this article is practically a hair's length away from GA status. Overall a great article. Impressive work @Bilorv:, be sure to let me know your thoughts on it. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, ExcellentWheatFarmer. I am of course biased but it looks like you've assessed all the relevant things. I've offered an alternative to one of the wording changes you requested and implemented the rest. — Bilorv (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, in which case I’m happy to pass this. Good job!ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)