Talk:Education and Democracy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 01:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I will snag this one, and I will review after Ed the Happy Clown. BenLinus1214^talk 01:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Hello there. My main comment for the article is a structuring one—you group a lot of stuff into summary that would better be put in a "development and publication" section because it's not actually summarizing the work itself (e.g. the second half of the first paragraph of that section)

• Unclear who the "speak for himself" quote is from.
• "The title is split into five sections…" The wording of this sentence makes it very unclear what the five sections actually are. Is the first section "based on geography, including Meiklejohn's undergrad, faculty, and administrative years at Brown University and Amherst College" or just "based on geography, including Meiklejohn's undergrad"?
• I dislike that you use a reviewer's voice (I think?) to make a definite statement about how Nelson portrays Meiklejohn—I would much rather that you say, "according to one reviewer…"
• I'm still confused as to the "based on geography" concept.
• split the second paragraph.
• You'll have to explain the third paragraph of this section to me—are these quotes directly from the author, or are they from reviewers? Basically, is this important to a summary of the work or is it more of a themes or reception type of material?
• I would prefer that you use the construction "writing for …" or "of …" rather than using parentheticals when citing works.
• It would be very helpful to the reader if you put a critical consensus at the top of this section similar to what you have in the lead. Other than that, this section looks good.

@Czar: So basically, there's some MoS issues, but other than that, everything looks pretty good. BenLinus1214^talk 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@BenLinus1214, I've accommodated almost all of your comments, if you'll take a look. The quotes in the "third paragraph" are summaries of the work and not of reviewer opinion. First quote is a reviewer paraphrase better than I could paraphrase myself. The second quote comes directly from the book. I think it is sufficient in context. Thanks for the review! – czar 17:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: You've incorporated my comments very well. I'm very satisfied with passing now. BenLinus1214^talk 21:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: