Talk:Anarchism and Friedrich Nietzsche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Former good article nominee Anarchism and Friedrich Nietzsche was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anarchism and Friedrich Nietzsche/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

starting review Reviewer: NimbusWeb (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is generally a well written article. Occasionally the prose could require slight modification. At the beginning of the Emma Goldman section, for example, we read ""can be summarised when she manifests in her biography.." The sense is that a paragraph from that autobiography is about to be quoted but "manifests" is an unusual word in this context. The article generally is a factually accurate analysis of various anarchist theorists who have drawn intellectually upon Nietzsche. The section on Camus seemed quite strained and might be challenged as I'm not sure it convincingly makes the case that Nietzsche rather than anarchist thought in general was influential on the former's views. There are appropriate references and in line citations. There's no original research that I could detect. It's generally neutral in tone but might benefit from more reference to criticism of Nietzschian anarchism both from a philosophical perspective and from the POV of the (allegedly) deleterious impact it might have on the willingness of citizens in a democracy to undertake social responsibilities. It is stable. It has multiple appropriate and interesting illustrations. It complies with the style manual. Overall I judge it has already reached GA status but could benefit from looking at the issues raised in this note.

You cannot pass this article untill it conforms better to WP:LEAD - the lead must be a summary of all the content of the article so that the lead can stand alone - the information of each section of the article should be briefly summarised in the lead. This lead is much too short for such a long article.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. Symbol neutral vote.svg Second opinion: this reviewer is requesting another editor's input on the article.NimbusWeb (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd opinion I have not fully read the article yet so these thoughts are based on overall impression:

  • I agree with user Maunus that the lead needs to be greatly expanded. Under the current GA Criteria MOS compliance is weighted heavily and the lead is part of the MOS standards.
  • There is a source tag in the Albert Camus photo that should be addressed.
  • There are four dead links in the reference section and several other dead external links. See [1] here for details.
  • Per WP:ACCESS the images should attempt to be placed solely within the section in which they apply. Four of the six images spill over into subsequent sections.
  • Most of the Emma Goldman and Frederica Monstseny sub sections are quotes, see WP:quote for formatting instructions and general use of quotes guidelines. In fact as I scan through the article I see many quotes that do not conform with MOS guidelines regarding quotations.

Overall I feel as though there are several issues that should be addressed regarding MOS compliance and referencing. If further information is required please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to take a closer look or answer any questions raised. H1nkles (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold for a week pending work. Once the above issues are addressed I will happily do a more thorough content review. H1nkles (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:|


|}}

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    {{subst:#if:Several issues with MOS compliance specifically over use of quotations, image location/size, and lead.|Several issues with MOS compliance specifically over use of quotations, image location/size, and lead.|}}
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    {{subst:#if:Several dead links in references and external links.|Several dead links in references and external links.|}}
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    C. No original research:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    {{subst:#if:Unknown until a fuller content review is undertaken|Unknown until a fuller content review is undertaken|}}
    B. Focused:
    {{subst:#if:Unknown until a fuller content review is undertaken|Unknown until a fuller content review is undertaken|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    {{subst:#if:Unknown until a fuller content review is undertaken|Unknown until a fuller content review is undertaken|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  6. 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:
    {{subst:#if:all but one image is fine, one image has been tagged needing source information|all but one image is fine, one image has been tagged needing source information|}}
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:I found several issues outlined in the review above. I have only taken a high-level look at the article, a more thorough review will be undertaken once the issues are addressed. H1nkles (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)|I found several issues outlined in the review above. I have only taken a high-level look at the article, a more thorough review will be undertaken once the issues are addressed. H1nkles (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)|}}

The issues raised in this second review have not been addressed. As such I will not promote the article at this time. Please use this review as a guide to help improve the article for a future run at GA. If you would like a more indepth review please contact me on my talk page. I will not be watching this article so comments should be left on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)