Talk:Hegemony or Survival/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 03:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Very elegant prose! Good job with this.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Only issues are that this link doesn't work and references 34 and 35 are bare URLs.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Good coverage of the main ideas of the book without getting bogged down with excessive detail. In the Background section, consider removing the sentence "They agreed to publish with Metropolitan because it was co-run by Engelhardt and Sara Bershtel," it doesn't add much and makes it sound like Engelhardt is agreeing with himself.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I like how you attribute controversial ideas to Chomsky instead of putting them in Wikipedia's voice. In the caption for the picture of U.S. soldiers in Iraq in the Synopsis section, consider saying just, "Chomsky considers the 2003 U.S.-U.K. invasion of Iraq as an attempt to secure lucrative natural resources and global hegemony" or phrasing it differently, since the bit inside the dashes is controversial and it sounds like you are asserting it as fact.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Good work, I'm happy to pass this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]