Talk:Anarchism/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

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

Reviewer:

talk) 23:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Initial skim indicates that this is not a quick fail.--

talk
) 23:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Assessment template below will be completed as I go.--
talk
) 23:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC) On questions fo balance, I'm willing to be convinced. WHen I was an activist, I was a member of the then
talk) 15:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

here
for criteria)

WP:WIAGA
for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Fight against fascism marked up numerous successful victories As opposed to unsuccesful ones? Apart from the tautology, this language reads as if an anarchist may have written it as if conributing to a propaganda sheet and might be slightly POV.
    I can live with the current revision marked up some victories but I still feel that "victories" is activist-speak. I can't think of any better wording however. I'll let this pass for GA but I woudl definitely want it changed before FA.-
    talk) 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I see this is now fixed.--
    talk) 21:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    B. MoS compliance:
    Lede: The last paragraph about etymology etc. isn't part of the summary of the article and needs to be either given its own section or included in with the history.--
    talk) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    fixed, thanks.--
    talk) 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Russian Revolution Whites needs explaining. I think ,most people would associate the term either with race or potatoes.--
    talk) 14:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I wasn't entirely happy with your wording. "Reactionary" strikes me as left-speak. What do you think of my version?--
    talk) 22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No worries, I wasn't beholden to the original wording. I chose "reactionary" because the only unifying characteristic of the motley group of Tsarists, liberals, capitalists, foreigners and nationalists that was the White movement was their opposition to the Revolution.  Skomorokh  22:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-classical anarchism:Anarchism continues to generate many eclectic and syncretic philosophies and movements; Syncretic is a sufficiently obscure term, that I think it could do with explanation.
    Fixed thanks.--
    talk) 21:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Organised Labour: The celebration of International Workers' Day on May Day became an annual event the following year. It would be good to reference this.
    Thanks.--
    talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Malatesta thought that trade-unions were reformist, and could even be, at times, conservative. Along with Cornelissen, he cited as example US trade-unions, where trade-unions composed of qualified workers sometimes opposed themselves to non-qualified workers in order to defend their relatively privileged position. Could this be reffed? I could see mention of Cornelissen in the Maletesa link for the previous sentence, but couldn't see the US mentioned. Would the book Malatesta: Life and Ideas cover it? It's available in the UK. Indeed I have a copy and could look it up, but I'm wary of compromising my role as GA reviewer by fixing too many points.--
    talk) 14:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thanks.--
    talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Russian Revolution:Communist parties grew at the expense of anarchism and other socialist movements. In France and the US, for example, certain members of the major syndicalist movements of the CGT and IWW left the organizations and joined the Communist International. I think a citation should be included.--
    talk) 15:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thanks.--
    talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Fight against fascism The last two paras have no refs.-
    talk) 15:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thanks.--
    talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    C. No original research:
    Russian Revolution: For them, Bakunin's predictions about the consequences of Marxist rule that the rulers of the new "socialist” Marxist state would become a new elite[47] had proved all too true. I think it needs to be shown tha Emma G or Alex B actually referred to Bakunin when criticising the Bolsheviks.--
    talk) 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thanks.--
    talk) 21:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    (I'm not sure whether this fits ubder A or B below, so I've put it above them) I remain to be convinced that Free Love is as important as claimed. If it is, then I wonder why the 1960s and the likes of
    talk) 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Schools of thought This section needs substantial condensation per
    talk) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Much more appropriate now, thanks.--
    talk) 16:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    Fair representation without bias:
    "According to George Orwell and other foreign observers," Given Orwell fought for the
    talk) 15:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thanks.--
    talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Post-classical anarchism: since the revival of anarchism in the U.S. in the 1960s,[141] a number of new movements and schools have emerged. Is the US really that central? Or is the
    talk) 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Hopefully, nobody will start one while I'm reviewing.--
    talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
    fair use rationales
    :
    The copyleft status claimed at Commons for the picture of Hakim Bey is doubtful. I have asked the initial uploader and (s)he is unable to confirm whether photo initially belonged to the site (s)he got it from or was released to them under a copyleft license. Choices are to conact the site, to find another source for this or equivalent picture or to remove the pic.|The copyleft status claimed at Commons for the picture of Hakim Bey is doubtful. I have asked the initial uploader and (s)he is unable to confirm whether photo initially belonged to the site (s)he got it from or was released to them under a copyleft license. CHoces are to conact the site, to find another source for this or equivalent picture or to remove the pic. I see this has been fixed. Thanks.--
    talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
    suitable captions
    :
    If there's room after the rework, then a picture of Proudhon would be nice. This won't make the difference between pass or fail.--
    talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thanks.--
    talk) 16:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I'm putting this on hold. The schools section needing condensing is the major issue. A few of the things under the question marked sections could be lived with. I haven't yet been through the notes and references as I expect a lot to disappear with the schools section rewrite.--
    talk) 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Misc comments I suggest mentioning the CNT's peak membership in the 1930s as you mention 21st century numners.--

talk) 14:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

THanks.--
talk) 21:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Ok, there should be refs for everything flagged above; I've added in comments about CNT membership and removed some of the questionably POV phrasing (Orwell, successful victories). The schools of thought leviathan has been choked from 53kb on January 7 to a paltry 22kb today, and is now of comparable length to the Social movement section. I'm unsure of how to deal with the "free love" and "libertarian education" subsections; though the material is important and relevant, it disrupts the chronological flow of the section. The content could perhaps be moved to Issues in anarchism and summarised in that section. If there's anything I've missed or further issues please feel free to flag them.  Skomorokh  07:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you can see, I am working through the points above and striking them off. I'm not sdure that I'll get through them all this evening, but should be done tomorrow. However, in the mean time I have noticed that
  1. Some new material has appeared. While at first glance the content isn't inappropriate, I note that some of it is unreferenced.
  2. There have been a couple of editing exchanges today. It's advisable to take such issues to the talk page especially when there is a GA review going on.
Given the new material, I'm going to have to do a thorough re-read over tomorrow and Thursday which may or may not lead to my asking for further changes..--
talk) 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

--

talk) 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Review after initial hold period

I'm working through the article again making some minor copy edits as I go to try to reduce what I raise here. --

talk) 14:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I think that there are two many footnotes in the lead. I'm specifically thinking of where several are stacked up in a row. I think it would be less intimidating to readers if there were one foot note that referenced six sources rather than six footnotes stacked up together.

*Organized labor: Police intervention led to the deaths of four men, enraging the workers of the city.

  • This reads like activist-speak to me. I'm attempted to ask what proportion of Chicago's workers were enraged. Also I don't understand what exactly is meant by by the police intevention leading to the deaths. If it is something overt like their shooting them, then that should be clearly stated. If it is less explicit then a neutral source needs to be referenced to say it was specificially the cops' fault.--
    talk) 14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Libertarian Education. I inserted a para on Summerhill and free schools which needs someone else to check.
  • Russian Revolution: First para lacks references.
  • Internal issues and debates: This is another sparsely referenced section.

As the above list is much smaller than the last one which has all been addressed, I'm extending the period of GAH.--

talk) 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I've addressed most of these, the exception being "Internal issues and debates" which is a brief summary section and does not contain anything controversial as far as I can tell. I could probably dig up some sources, but as far as
2 (b) I'd say we're covered. Cheers,  Skomorokh  06:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm going to pass this. The one big issue I noticed in scanning the notes was that the BBC's The Guide to Life, The Universe and Everything is referenced in a couple of places. This is a Wikipedia-style source written by memebrs of the public and is therefore not reliable. However I don't think the May day stuff is in doubt.--

talk) 13:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchism/GA1&oldid=1136517569"