Talk:Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 06:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   • I'm not sure if "authored by two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Anthony Lewis" counts as Puffery, but I'd sure like to see it shortened to "by Anthony Lewis", or, say, "by American author Anthony Lewis".
   • "A repeated theme emphasized in the book": isn't it a common attribute of themes that they are "repeated" and "emphasized"?
   • The article is awfully quote heavy, and I think a lot of the quotations would be better paraphrased and summarized.

   • I can see you've cut back on the use of quotes, but it still comes off as quote-heavy to me. There are a lot of instances where, I think, paraphrasing the quote would lend itself to smoother reading:

   • current: In an interview with the author, Deborah Solomon of The New York Times Magazine observed, "This has been a theme in American politics, the use of fear-mongering to justify repression."
   • paraphrased: In an interview with the author, Deborah Solomon of The New York Times Magazine observed that American politics has frequently used fear to justify repression.

   ...which, aside from being a little shorter, reads more smoothly. Unless there is a reason to use a particular quote (you don't want to paraphrase "There is nothing to fear but fear itself", for example), I think you'll find that the prose is a lot easier and more enjoyable to read if you don't chop up the text with frequent quotes.

   • You might want to cut down on duplicate links (see WP:REPEATLINK). There is a script you can use to help catch them. I thought there was a tool somewhere that did the same thing without adding a script, but I can't seem to find it. In particluar, you link The New York Review of Books twice in the lead alone.

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Provides extensive criticism of the book, positive and negative, in the "Reception" section

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   1 fair use image for infobox with appropriate FUR; 2 images from Commons

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good article, with an editor who is quickly responsive to feedback. I enjoyed reading it, too. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)