Talk:Society/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. This is a tricky article to get right, so forgive me if it takes a few days to get started - I have to do some background research to assess comprehensiveness and the sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Of the universe, I noticed you've been less active recently. Can you confirm that you are available and have time to fix issues arising from the review, such as the sourcing issues below? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Yes, I do! Thanks so much for the time and effort. I'll work on it soon. Of the universe (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Great! Will go over the rest of the sourcing issues and some other notes today. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811, FYI I've come down with COVID so I may be slow to work on this for the next week or so. Of the universe (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, feel better! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Of the universe That's a bummer. I hope you'll be alright and get well. — Alex26337 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 I added more information on Reference 66, and I shortened the quote to include only what's essential to the article sentence its reffering to. - Alex26337 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for helping out! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I also fixed the issue for Reference 69 (I'm just doing what I can to help). I'll note anything else I fix if/when I continue. - Alex26337 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 I improved References 37-39 (And additionally, reference 40). - Alex26337 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Question: If the problems noted down have been resolved, are you going to remove them from the list (or a better idea, strikethrough the problems so there is a record of what was a problem)? - Alex26337 (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to strike them through yourself as you resolve them, or just use ":*" to reply to each comment as you fix them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we're getting very close on sourcing - thank you for all your hard work, @Alex26337. Once we've wrapped that up, the onus goes back on me to do a final comprehensiveness and prose check, and then I think we'll just about be there. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have hesitated to make a comment about this review, being occupied with other matters which will likely prevent me giving this the attention it deserves. However, the issue of cultural bias impacts this article significantly, as it likely does all social science articles. The basic outline of the topic is firmly in the mainstream Western tradition of sociology, beginning with the three theoretical orientations (not really "paradigms") used to define society. While Sociology 101 classes may continue to begin by teaching the 19th century Western canon of Durkhiem, Marx, G.H. Mead and Weber, a WP article should find a way to acknowledge from the beginning that these conceptions have excluded other perspectives. Similarly the types of societies should not be limited to definitions based upon levels of technology; pre-industrial, industrial, and post-industrial, which are also rooted in a 19th century Western POV. - WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this thoughtful comment - I will consider it as I assess comprehensiveness. Beyond the Alatas piece below, do you have any other recommended works that describe or outline these other perspectives? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Alright, after at least a week, I finished the remaining reference-related tasks. Additionally, I went over and properly formatted all the references, sources, and further readings as I worked on this article. It feels really amazing to help promote this article to the GA-class, especially because of three things: (1): this is my first time doing something at this extent, (2): this is a Level-1 Vital article, and (3): as of now, I'm less than 50 edits away from Extended-confirmed status. I know there's still that one task with expanding the Industrial society section, so I'll try to look into that. Although, while I have been trying to get at least one task done per day, school is about to resume, so I may be working less frequently. As usual, if there are any issues regarding this article's references, fell free to tell me; and thanks or noticing my contributions! — Alex26337 (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You've done remarkable work! We're very close to GA status now. Thanks for your contributions so far. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Ok, I have a concern regarding me helping out on this article. I realized that, for this article's remaining tasks, its been hard to keep my mind on them and formulate a proper solution, because I'm not good at expanding articles as I am improving maintenance tasks and information connected to and regarding references. To me it seems the pressure to keep up with this article is increasing, and I don't want to abandon this article that's very close to being promoted. This brings me to two things I want to say - (1): To @Of the universe, I want to personally thank you for expanding the industry section, since that's been on my mind for awhile. I'd recommend listing your completed task in the table below. (I'd do it myself, but I want you to take the credit). (2): To @Ganesha811, is there a place where I can ask other editors to help with the remaining tasks for this page? I don't want to bear this guilt of not being able to help with everything. - I'll still keep watch on the article and this nomination page, and if the oppurtunity presents itself, I'll continue to help out. — Alex26337 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work! I'm sorry I haven't been able to help more myself. I'm still planning on expanding the Industrial section more before I mark it finished. — Of the universe (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No guilt required! Wikipedia is a hobby, not a job, and you're under no obligation to do more here, especially as you weren't the original nominator. Just take a break and help out whenever you feel like it. But don't feel required to find a replacement or feel any guilt, Wikipedia should be fun. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Of the universe: it would be great to wrap up this review in the next week, given it's been open since the beginning of the month. Do you have the availability/time to make the remaining changes/adjustments over the next seven days? I think we're very close and can definitely get to GA here. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Ganesha811 I will try my best! I am feeling better but now behind at work due to COVID. I really appreciate your in depth review, and I wish I had been able to be more responsive. This is my first time having my wikipedia editing substantially reviewed, so it has been a very valuable experience for me. I think I'll have more time to finish things up after tomorrow. Of the universe (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ok! I'm not strict on 7 days, but let's say we'll give ourselves until the end of the month. At that point, if we're not finished, I'll have to close the review. Hopefully won't be an issue. I'm glad you're feeling better! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like we just need one more thing under 'Coverage', I'll do a final prose check, and we're all set! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• This article now meets the GA standard. Congratulations to the two nominators here, who both contributed a great deal, and to all others who worked on the article. I'll promote it now! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The Adam Smith quote is interesting, but a bit oddly placed. Three options: it could be worked into the text elsewhere, it could be expanded into part of a paragraph about historical conceptions of the meaning of 'society', or it could simply be removed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)  Removed: First I went on a quote hunt to try to make this a paragraph, but I kept finding quotes on sociology (not society), which was a specific I didn't want to include in this section. Then I tried to fit this quote to another location in the article, but I couldn't find a match between the quote and the other section's specific topics. So after an extended period of time, thought, and searching, I decided to remove the quote from the Etymology section until further notice. — Alex26337 (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC) There are a lot of WP:DUPLINKS - I recommend installing User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, which will provide a handy tool to highlight them, making them much easier to find and remove. Generally, once in the lead and once in the body is sufficient, with some reasonable exceptions where you think a new link is necessary. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)  Resolved: Using the duplinks-alt code, I removed all duplicate links I found except for the one for social constructionism, because I feel that its duplicate is far enough from the original to be kept in the article. — Alex26337 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Made final prose tweaks. Pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	This section is currently uncited: "Larger food supplies due to improved technology mean agrarian.... directly participate in the production of food."  Resolved: Added a citation for this group of unreferenced sentences (Lenski & Lenski 1987). — Alex26337 (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC) No uncited passages, citations are accurately placed and given page numbers. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I don't think the Online Etymology Dictionary is a reliable source, per previous discussions at WP:RSN.  Resolved Fixed! (replaced source where possible, removed info i could not verify. Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Smithsonian Magazine isn't an author of the Angier source.)  Resolved fixed! Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Link Jack Goody in citation.  Resolved fixed! Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Lumen Learning does not appear to be a reliable source.  Resolved removed! Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) No need for birth/death years in Macionis citation. Also, Gerber appears to be a co-author to Macionis.  Resolved both fixed! Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) What is the function of the 'See Also' in cite 29 (Sahlins)?  Resolved The purpose was to show similar analyses by other authors. I added it into the text and separated them out. Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Re: Cite #30 (Sackett) see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Can we regard this dissertation as reliable?  Resolved Removed it and replaced it with Sahlins estimate --- this section may need to be balanced with critique of the original affluent society. Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Agreed, a sentence of well-cited critique would be appropriate. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Cites #37, 38, 39 could all use more detail, such as ISBNs and publishers (Langlois, Brown, Lenski)  Resolved — Alex26337 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC) #46 (UK commons) is a weird citation for this simple fact, and would be better replaced by something published by a specific author, or at a minimum archived.  Resolved found better source. Of the universe (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Cite #47 (Soll) again seems like an odd choice for this information. What is the page # where Soll discusses the relevant info? Replaced: I couldn't find the page holding the relevant info, so I replaced the citation with a new one (Beniger). The page numbers listed (pp. 21–22) source the direct information, while the pages' section expands on relevant information. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Cite #48 (Canvas) is unreliable and should be replaced. Y Replaced: Replaced (Canvas) citation with a new one (Mattelart). The pages listed in the citation (pp. 99–158) feature two chapters that go into the appropriate information. — Alex26337 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Cite #49 (Indiana University) doesn't appear to contain the information it's used to cite directly, it's a fairly generic description page. Replace with a better source. Y Replaced with a new citation (Lyon). — Alex26337 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Cite #50 isn't terrible, but the paragraph it's used to support is not well-placed in the article. Why should we mention the EU specifically in a very high-level article on society as a whole?  Removed: After thinking about it for a while, I decided to remove the paragraph and citation about the EU. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Cite #53 (Ireland) is odd. The source as a whole seems mostly reliable, but the specific statistic is given in a "Chairman's Foreword" that may not have been fact checked. It also hedges by saying "now estimated to be" but does not provide a citation or any information about who estimated this. Without a better source (showing how the calculation was made), this sentence and source should be removed.  Removed: I looked into this source, and although I found this data referenced, I was unable to find such reference (or a matching one). As a result, I decided to remove the sentence and citation. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Stopping here for now. For this article sourcing is key and there are definitely some issues! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC) #63 (Palomar) does not appear to be reliable. Replaced: I replaced (Palomar) with a new citation (Gillespie). — Alex26337 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC) The quote included in #66 can be shortened - additionally, the author's name appears to be Peoples, not People, and both co-authors can be given full first names. The first name issue also occurs in other citations - where available, there's no need to abbreviate to a single letter.  Resolved — Alex26337 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC) #69 (Blackmore) comes from National Geographic and should be identified as such.  Done — Alex26337 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC) The LiveScience.com source does not appear particularly reliable - replace. Y Replaced with a new citation (Harrison). — Alex26337 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC) #76 (Christian) could use a page number. Please check this in other citations as well.  Resolved: Added page number, the quote to compliment the referenced sentence, and additional information. — Alex26337 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC) #77 should probably be given as an attributed opinion in text, such as adding "according to The Economist."  Resolved: I noted attribution from The Economist in the sentence. Additionally, I updated the percentage statistics so they match to the source (albeit rounded up to the ones place). — Alex26337 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC) #79 (NatGeo international organizations) doesn't contain the number of UN members given in text (193) - need a second source or just replace this one entirely.  Resolved: I added a second source to account for the number of UN members. (Mingst, Karns, & Lyon 2022) — Alex26337 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Seems like #81 (Wyoming) should be replaced and specified to the actual journal article, not a press release about it. Y Replaced with its sourced journal article (Horan, Bulte, & Shogren 2005). — Alex26337 (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Ditto for #82. This is the iNews source, for clarity. The actual academic studies would be a big improvement here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Y Replaced: I couldn't find the specific citation the iNews article was referencing, so I found one that matched the referenced sentence's information and replaced the iNews reference with that. (Gosch & Stearns 2008) — Alex26337 (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC) #85 (history of money) would probably be better replaced by academic sources re: cattle & cowries. Y Replaced with three new citations. [(Semenova), (Yang), (Middelkoop)] — Alex26337 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC) I'm not convinced that Middelkoop is as reliable as we would want - seems to have a very particular axe to grind about the dollar/gold financial system. Would prefer removal (if adequately covered by Semenova and Yang) or replacement with a better source. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Yg Replaced: Alright, I replaced (Middelkoop) with two new references; in terms of the sentence, the first citation (Chown) goes in depth with the history of coin and paper money, while the second citation (Evans) goes into electronic money using the history of credit cards. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) #87 (inequality delusion) is a bit of a cherry-picked statistic - a broader measure of inequality or example of wealth divisions might be more useful. Y Replaced: I replaced the citation with a new one (Zucman 2019) and rewrote the referenced sentence. — Alex26337 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC) #27, from primitivism.com, seems to just be a reprint of a Sahlins paper - is it identical to #26? Either way, a citation to the original publication location would be preferred.  Implemented: I added the citation information for the privitism reference (Stone Age Economics), along with the direct page and quote to support it. — Alex26337 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)  Note: When I compared the Stone Age Economics (SAE) reference to the Man the Hunter (MH) reference, they were similar in terms of authorship, title, and a certain graph that's supportive to the sentence they're referencing. The only difference is, SAE seems to go more in depth with the topic, so I'm not sure if we should delete the MH reference. — Alex26337 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC) I think it's ok to keep them both, no doubt Sahlins borrowed some of his own work, but that's not an issue for us here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Given that Asa Briggs is now used just once, it can be moved up from 'Sources' into 'Citations'  Done — Alex26337 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Ditto for Bulliet et al. and Langlois.  Done — Alex26337 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Is Lenski 1966 / 1984 used in the article at all now? If not, it can be moved to 'Further Reading'.  Resolved: I moved the source into 'Further Reading' — Alex26337 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Some of the 'Further Reading' selections are only tenuously related or simply insignificant. Dunfey, Larrain, Harvey, Harman, Hall, and Althusser seem particularly egregious. It feels more like a reading list associated with Das Kapital than with society as a whole. Marx was a foundational sociologist, but given that he only gets two sentences in the prose (as appropriate for such a broad article), the reading list does not need to be so focused on his work.  Removed: @Ganesha811 After looking at the references you pointed out for myself, along with other references regarding Marx, I noticed and agree on what you mean, noticing their heavy focus on Marx rather than Society (this article's main topic), so I removed them. Although, I only kept one reference regarding Marx (Postone) so the "Further Reading" section doesn't lean too much on him, and because in terms of the information already present in the article, it seems appropriate enough to keep. I hope this is OK, and if what I did concerns you, please let me know. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Issue addressed after a thorough effort by the two nominators! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing egregious, but it definitely can't assess all the sources properly - hold for manual check. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "much more recently than that" from Ferguson is a borrowed phrase and should be modified.  Resolved Of the universe (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Manual check finds nothing of concern. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	First comment - the 'industrial society' section can be expanded to at least twice its size - its paucity compared to those which precede and follow it is noticeable. Issue addressed. A sentence or two of criticism or explication of Sahlins' hypothesis is also worth adding.  Done: I added a sentence to balance the preceding one. Although, the sentence may need to be reworded to make reading the respective paragraph more comfortable; just check that for me, ok? — Alex26337 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Issue addressed. I do think, per WriterArtistDC's comment above, a few sentences focused on non-Western perspectives of society (whether pre-modern or modern) would be worth adding, perhaps under 'Conceptions' Not yet done. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)  Done Of the universe (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC) Issues addressed. Pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Other than EU detail noted above, no areas of significant overdetail. Assuming that will be handled, provisional pass. Y Addressed: I handled the EU Issue above. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See comments under 'Coverage' above.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding issues on talk page; the definition of society query is appropriately addressed in text/sources. No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:ONU Geneva mainroom.jpg is not public domain, so please double-check that it is labeled appropriately according to the license terms - a truly PD image might be better if a suitable replacement is available.  Verified: I checked on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and it shows the file under the CC-BY-SA 2.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0, and GNU 1.2 licenses. If you find the picture under Public Domain elsewhere, please let me know. — Alex26337 (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Issue discussed, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image of wolves/bison is superfluous to the image of ants, which are mentioned (appropriately) in the text.  Removed: I removed the wolf/bison image. — Alex26337 (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC) The Silk Road image could be removed - it's unsourced. If there's a better available image of trade/economics, that could be swapped in.  Question: @Ganesha811 In terms of the Silk Road picture, I found this similar image that, unlike the first, has a license (CC-BY-SA 4.0) and is SVG formatted. However, although the routes shown in the new image match the first one, I don't know if its a good enough depiction of the Society article's Trade and Economics section. I thought of including the fact of the "spice trade routes overlapping the other caravan routes" in the image's description (since the spice trade routes are mentioned in the section and current image), but I'm concerned the picture won't be able to represent this completely (partly because of the "Silk Road" title box). Before deciding to replace the current image, I want to know your opinion in terms of the new image I found. — Alex26337 (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Tracing back the data source there, it seems reasonably laid out, and it's certainly a high quality image. I'd swap it in, with a caption along the lines of "The Silk Road was used for long-distance trade of spices along caravan and ocean routes" - definitely do improve my phrasing, though! Thanks for finding the alternative. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Y Replaced: Alright, I replaced the picture. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Issues addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.