Talk:Hannah Arendt/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


I'm going to claim this review right now, with the caveat that it may be a little while before I am able to sit down and give this the attention that it really deserves (and it may be a slightly bitty review). I'm far from an expert on Arendt, but I am familiar with her work and some of the secondary literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me start with a few general comments from the first look:

Images[edit]

  • The image situation in this article is a bit all over the place. The lead image is non-free, but there are a range of (putatively) free images of the subject further down the article; if we have free images, we should not be using non-free images. However, many of the "free" images are claimed as public domain because of details about their first publication, but no clear information about their first publication is provided.
Images are often one of the more difficult aspects of producing WP articles. To put this in perspective, when I took on this project recently, there was only one image and it was nominated for deletion, because it came from a German postage stamp. The use of non-free images for biography infoboxes is fairly common on WP, provided the guidelines are properly followed as they are here, including single use, reduced size and cropping.
There actually are only a few images of the subject available. Establishing whether an image is free can be challenging. Others writing on this subject, have used these images without attribution. I have traced them to the Arendt papers on American Memory which is stated to be a PD collection. No copyright information is provided for these images there. As far as prior publication goes, this is a situation I have frequently encountered in historical biography. I cannot find any information to suggest they were ever published. They appear to come from her personal papers which were donated to the Library of Congress. That is, they are personal family photographs. Establishing that an image is free obviously gets easier the older they are. They were placed here to illustrate the different phases of her life.
If in doubt I placed links to External images, such as the postage stamp mentioned above--Michael Goodyear   02:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry to contradict you, but there is no way that "the guidelines are properly followed" if you are using a non-free image in an infobox when free images exist. Please review the non-free content guidelines if you do not believe me. As for the free images: I accept that proper sourcing information can be difficult, but that's just one of the challenges that we face in producing a Wikipedia article. At the moment, the images are tagged as public domain because of certain facts about their first publication, but no information about this publication is provided. Now, however, you're telling me that these images were not published (prior to appearing on that website, I assume), so I'm left unclear on why the images are public domain. Any claim that an image is public domain has to be carefully supported; this sometimes means that we have to err on the side of caution and not use images that may be public domain because we just aren't sure. That's the price that, collectively, we've decided to pay to push for a "free" encyclopedia. The good article criteria do mention the importance of valid non-free use rationales and correct copyright tagging, so these issues need to be resolved before this can be promoted to GA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
It is not a question of contradiction, but of interpretation. I agree this is nearly always messy, because frequently the relevant information simply is not available, and requires some judgement and assumption.
Infobox: The guideline I was was referring to was exactly that - acceptable fair use, where it is an historical image of a deceased person used to illustrate the article about that person. In addition I was citing the rationale for fair use as laid out on the image file, which appears to be the text normally used in such contexts, including single use, not commons, low resolution, only part of the original image and not replacing marketing role.
Other images of the subject are all from American Memories, which the WP page states is an "archive for public domain image resources". However, it is possible that this is open to interpretation. The Library of Congress says it provides copyright information where available, but does not guaranty its accuracy "despite extensive research" (which I take to be a legal cover). All I can say is that I have also carried out an exhaustive search for such information, and have not found it to date. They also state that the materials "are made available under an assertion of fair use" and that unpublished work "has been dedicated to the public". This provides some assurance. Other criteria for fair use on WP include the use of historical images of deceased persons where the author is unknown, and is likely to have died (some countries say 50 others 70 years ago). For images earlier than 1923 this is a bit more straightforward, than for the remaining ones, although even they are covered by the prior to 1977 rule.
Therefore, if you feel strongly that the image used in the infobox is not acceptable and accept the probable PD status of the images from the Hannah Arendt Papers, we could swap one in. I will continue to research this.--Michael Goodyear   18:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
With respect, you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. You can't use a non-free image in the infobox if we have a free image. This isn't a question of "interpretation": it's a cornerstone of our non-free use policy. As for the other images: If they're public domain, provide a clear explanation and evidence on the image page - again, there's the possibility of differences of interpretation, but, for the most part, we can stick to some hard and fast rules. Dates/countries of first publication are potentially important, as are years of the author's death. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Its complicated because it is. 1. The lead image was used originally as fair use since no alternative was available. The recent finding and uploading of other images clearly changed that, provided they are actually free. Therefore the former argument was predicated on the latter. 2. The issue being that none of the information that you list is available. In an abundance of caution I removed the lead image and swapped it for one of the other images, for the time being, as I suggested above. All I can do for the other images is to try and add some rationale to the image file in addition to the licensing tags. Let me think about how best to do that. Clearly the reductio is never to use images because one can rarely be 100% certain about status - which would be a a pity. --Michael Goodyear   20:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Rationales for free use have been provided for all images of the subject, as requested, based primarily on Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished --Michael Goodyear   01:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Publications[edit]

  • The inclusion of the selected publications before discussion of her thought looks a little odd; I'd rather expect the list of publications to appear at the end of the article, directly above the bibliography/cited works.
In the absence of hard and fast rules on this one can at least be consistent, provided it makes sense. See for instance my most recent FA biography (William T. Stearn), This has been my consistent practice, including a list of publications as part of a discussion of publications. That makes sense to me. I have tweaked this a bit today, because I was trying to give the Eichmann discussion the prominence it needs given the impact it made. The "Views" section is frequently listed later, than a specific discussion of publications.--Michael Goodyear   02:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

  • I wonder if the popular culture section is really necessary? With just one quick reference, it doesn't seem to deserve its own section. I'd recommend expanding, removing, merging with the recognition section, or some combination of these.
You have a point, unless more appears. IPC are often very brief. This item was originally listed under Commemoration, but that is incorrect. Yes, it could be expanded, at least as far as the one item I am aware of. --Michael Goodyear   02:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Expanded as recommended. After all, it is basically a philosophical work

Bibliography[edit]

  • I'm surprised by the way you split up the bibliography, and wonder whether it could perhaps be split into a "works cited" and a "further reading" section, given that a lot of it is not actually cited in the article proper. Some of it could perhaps also be moved to the external links section, which currently looks a little empty.
Again I am being very consistent across a multitude of GA and FAs. As it says in comments, it is a curated bibliography which facilitates both maintenance and usage. Whether a work is cited or not is often fluid, they were all consulted, which is the reason why I consistently merge works cited and further reading. For instance today I used references to several works there that had not been used up to date. They are tools for further edits.
I have a lot of problems with External links, which is all too commonly a dumping ground for a pot pouri of raw URLs. Saying something is external does not make much since since virtually all links are external. Therefore my practice has been to internalise, place in cite format and organise so they can be cited, which External links cannot.--Michael Goodyear   02:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I will find time to take a proper look through in due course; I want to be able to sit down with this properly! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I placed this in Women in Red, so as someone who works in Feminist bioethics, I am happy to have at least a link to Women in Philosophy drive Of course Arendt is featured in Women in philosophy, but the lead image in List of women philosophers is of Arendt, but is the image I refer to above that is nominated for deletion - so should be replaced if possible. --Michael Goodyear   02:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)--Michael Goodyear   20:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

1. Bluelinks. It is always interesting how in reviews one reviewer insists one not do something, the next reviewer insists you do. Case in point, underlinking and overlinking. On my last review, the reviewer removed most of the links, stating that the current philosophy, is to be very sparing. In particular pointing to What not to link. This was my reason for not linking sovereign states, which I see you have restored.

I didn't create a link to any current sovereign states! (I added a link to Palestine, but removed it.) I don't mind you trimming back n the links if you'd prefer. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually I had created a link to the correct legal entity at that time which was Mandate of Palestine in the text. Links make sense where there is potential ambiguity. --Michael Goodyear   21:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

2. Redlinks. Some are more enthusiastic about this than others. I tend to think if one is going to redlink, one should provide the missing page. So I didn't link The Life of the Mind. Now I feel I need to start a page on that book. --Michael Goodyear   15:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A lot of people have an aversion to redlinks, and that's very sad. Part of the point of them, of course, is to encourage content creation. If you feel compelled to write an article on The Life of the Mind, then, in a sense, they've done their job! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
In progress as user page --Michael Goodyear   17:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. See The Life of the Mind --Michael Goodyear   13:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

3. Denken. I used "thinking" over "thought", which you seem to prefer, because like Heidegger, she repeatedly returns to Denken as a core concept. --Michael Goodyear   15:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok- that may be my mistake. If you'd prefer to use thinking, I've no aversion to it, but (of course) aim to avoid ambiguity. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

4. Revisions to article of October 20 reviewed --Michael Goodyear   13:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review tools[edit]

Copyright violations[edit]

Earwig's Copyvio Detector reported a 78% match with Eichmann in Jerusalem. I have gone through this very carefully, and appears to be a false positive entirely due to the use of attributed quotations. Other matches are due to inclusion of similar items in bibliography. --Michael Goodyear   17:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Other[edit]

Checked for internal and external links --Michael Goodyear   18:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Michael Goodyear and J Milburn, there has been no activity on this review page for over a month. If this does not change then the review will have to be closed down because it can't stay open forever. Display name 99 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I was concerned about this and contacted the reviewer on October 1, who assured me he was working on it.--Michael Goodyear   22:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I see that's been four days ago. It's getting a little bit absurd now. If you don't hear anything you can go ahead and contact me and I'll see if I can finish things up. Display name 99 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
"It's getting a little bit absurd"? I think we have a slightly different idea of what that word means. If you think my reviewing is "absurd", you go ahead and take over... Josh Milburn (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't object to your reviewing but the lack thereof. The fact that you chose to completely ignore this for over a month is ridiculous. Display name 99 (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. If you want to help with the review, then I'm sure both Michael and I would welcome it. If you don't, perhaps you could take your concerns elsewhere? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

First proper read-through[edit]

Ok: I'm going to take a proper look end-to-end:

General[edit]

1 I think we need to be very selective in our use of links to other Wikipedias. I see we link to the German Wikipedia article on Max Arendt; why not create a redlink? Same for the link to her dissertation, Erwin Loewenson, Benno von Wiese, Hugo Friedrich, and perhaps others. If they're notable, create a redlink!

This article relies heavily on German texts. I made a deliberate choice to link to the German WP where there was no English equivalent rather than redlink. The rationale is that to do so is a good deal more informative than redlinking, and provides an easy tool for later writing specific English pages. You will recall our earlier discussion on redlinks. --Michael Goodyear   16:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a link to a German Wikipedia article provides useful information, but note that it only provides that for people who can read German (which the majority of readers of the English Wikipedia, I think it is safe to assume, cannot. I do recall our earlier conversation, and I repeat what I said there: redlinks are good things, and are actively encouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. In-line interlanguage links, on the other hand, unless you're aware of something I'm not, have very little support within Wikipedia guidelines, even if they are technically possible. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

2 Is this in British English, American English, or something else? I see American dates, but note favourable

Point taken. Since there is no British English tag, the default on WP is American, which was her English, but not always easy for British writers like myself. I carried out an automated search using redlining. Hopefully any residual Britishisms have been removed.  Done --Michael Goodyear   17:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The default on Wikipedia is not American. The default, if there is one, is relative to the subject. In this case, she was an American citizen, so I think American English would be preferable. However, it ultimately doesn't matter as long as 1) it's not changed without consensus and 2) it's consistent. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it is implicit in that it provides for the use of a British English tag but not American! --Michael Goodyear   14:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
There are templates for both! You can read the guideline at WP:ENGVAR. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to over labour the point (reviews should be mutually educational). I'm aware of the page, but it does not address templates. However as you say there is a Template:Use American English but in all my years I have never seen it used (possibly a selection bias) and it does not seem to be used much.--Michael Goodyear   17:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

3 You sometimes provide dates for the people mentioned, sometimes not. I confess I can't really work out your system.

What I tried to do was, on first introducing a character, ask (1) are their dates relevant, eg relative age, date of death, placing them in historical perspective, and (2) were reliable dates available. --Michael Goodyear   18:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok; happy to leave that as a matter of your judgement. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

4 I wonder whether it would be better to start referring to her as "Arendt" once you start the "career" section?

I am not sure what you are driving at here. The usage is either "Arendt" or "Hannah Arendt", and my guide to usage was that of her definitive biography. --Michael Goodyear   18:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean that we don't need to use her full name as frequently as we do. Once we get to the career section, I think it is generally safe to assume we know which Arendt we're referring to! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

5 Italics. "for a grant to the Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft" A grant to NDW? And why italics?

OK, clarified as applying to a body for a grant. Italicisation of German and other foreign institutions (but not place names) not in common English usage is as per WP:MOS.  Done --Michael Goodyear   18:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I think you've misread the MOS there. Quoting from MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parenthesis after the English name; e.g.: Nuremberg (German: Nürnberg). See § Words as words, above." Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe I have misread it, I have read it it many times. It refers to foreign words not commonly used in English, with the exception of proper names and places. It does not refer to institutions and organiations. On the other hand I have further extensively reviewed style manuals, including university ones, specifically on this point. I believe you are right, since I have now found three that exempt these categories. I will therefore amend the MOS to be more explicit  Done and get around to making the changes throughout  Done --Michael Goodyear  !
I'm glad to hear we're on the same page, but I think the MOS does already say this. The names of particular institutions/organisations (e.g., National Health Service, University of Cambridge, the Royal Society) are proper names. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
That might appear to be a matter of opinion, hence my use of "explicit". Other style manuals distinguish between proper names and names of institutions. Anyway now it is explicit! --Michael Goodyear   17:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Deutsche Hochschule für Politik" Why italics?
See above. I believe I have been consistent throughout in italicisation of foreign institutions and organizations not in common English usage, but admit that style guides vary considerably in the use of italics, and WP is not totally explicit on this particular point. Most style guides favour italics for foreign words, but few specifically address the question of titles of foreign institutions and organizations. National Geographic does not italicise in this instance. Can I leave it to you to decide on policy on this particular point, since it would need to be consistent throughout.(of course other editors may come along with different ideas) --Michael Goodyear   18:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
See above- I do think Wikipedia is fairly clear on this point, though, admittedly, the point is hidden away a few paragraphs later than you might hope! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands" Why italics?
  • "Zionistische Vereinigung für Deutschland" Ditto
Again see general comments on use of italics above --Michael Goodyear   18:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Ditto! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You're inconsistent on whether you italicise émigré; I'd recommend against it, as it's fairly common in English.
Thanks. I agree usage is the general rule, and obviously should be consistent, but there is not much consensus on this one. Since the page the word links to is italicised, it makes sense to do the same here. Fixed  Done --Michael Goodyear   15:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Lead[edit]

1 "whose politics were social democracy" Why not something like "who were social democrats"? The current option is a little wordy.

Agree, I had clarified that in the main text, the Lead had lagged behind  Done --Michael Goodyear   16:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

2 The second paragraph of the lead is very long. Do you think there is a natural way to split it? I wonder whether "Divorcing Stern" or "She settled in" would be good places to start a new paragraph.

Agree, I was trying to avoid the limit some reviewers place on the number of paragraphs allowed in a lead. I split it at the end of her formal education  Done --Michael Goodyear   16:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
For future reference, the limit to the number of paragraphs in the lead is relative to the size of the article- see WP:LEADLENGTH. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It still says four! -- Michael Goodyear   14:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, point taken! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Early life and education (1906–1929)[edit]

1 "and women who shared the loss of husbands and children" This is a little prosaic

Still it is a statement in her definitive biography. I included it because I believe it was formative --Michael Goodyear   16:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't object to the inclusion of the information; I wonder if it could be presented in a slightly less poetic way. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I took another look at it and it still seemed to be prose rather than poetry. But I'm open to suggestion --Michael Goodyear  

2 "Margarethe Fuerst (Fürst 1884–1942)" Fuerst or Fürst? This is a little confusing.

Cut and paste error from umlaut adverse source  Done --Michael Goodyear   17:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

3 "When Königsberg appeared to be no longer threatened, they returned after ten weeks, spending the remaining war years there at her grandfather's house." This sentence is a little all over the place. Could you perhaps try to smoothen it out?

Agree. Rephrased  Done --Michael Goodyear   17:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

4 Kurt Blumenfeld or Karl Blumenfeld?

Thanks. It is Kurt.  Done --Michael Goodyear   18:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Career[edit]

1 "After Heidelberg, where Günther completed the first draft of his Habilitation thesis, the Sterns then moved to Frankfurt where Günther hoped to complete it" This isn't clear. What does it refer to? The first draft? An earlier clause says that the first draft was complete.

Pronouns refer back to last noun. Maybe the repetition of "complete" is potentially confusing. Gunther hoped to have the final MS of his thesis completed in Frankfurt. Clarified.  Done --Michael Goodyear   18:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
My point is that the noun phrase is "the first draft of the thesis", and not "the thesis" (and that's not the last noun anyway). "complete a final draft" may be a little less ambiguous? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The shadow of Heidegger hung over their relationship, but Hannah assisted him with his work." A little over-prosaic, and it's not clear what the two parts of the sentence have to do with each other.
Well it is as phrased in the source. They were having marital difficulties, but Hannah was a dutiful wife. Rephrased.  Done --Michael Goodyear   18:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

2 and turned instead to Rahel Varnhagen and the question of assimilation as the subject" What does this mean?

That in 1930 she abandoned German Romanticism as the subject of her thesis and took up Rahel Varnhagen and the question of assimilation as her new project. Rephrased.  Done --Michael Goodyear   18:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You refer to Rahel Varnhagen by full name repeatedly. Why not simply Varnhagen?
Because unlike say, Kant or Heidegger, Varnhagen is a word unlikely to mean anything to anyone not familiar with Arendt or who has not read the entire page up to that point --Michael Goodyear   18:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Point taken, though I'm not sure how much that matches with the MOS. From MOS:SURNAME: "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Ms", "Miss", or "Mx", or by a pronoun." I'm not going to push it, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually following the approach used in the standard Arendt biographies --Michael Goodyear   13:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


3 "Das Frauenproblem in der Gegenwart. Eine psychologische Bilanz" You normally provide translations?

Because it was rather long and I placed it in the citation. However to be consistent with Weber immediately above, I added it here too.  Done --Michael Goodyear   19:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

4 *Who is Anne Mendelssohn? She is mentioned without any introduction.

It looks like her original introduction got moved to Relationships - now placed in Early education  Done --Michael Goodyear   19:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Ok, stopping there for now. I've made it to the end of the "Germany" subsection of the "career" section. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes so far; I've left some replies in-line. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Your recent edits reviewed. It is of interest how much reviewers vary in interpretation of linkage policy. You have added links. Recently I have had reviewers strip most of my links citing recent WP policy to minimise, and the inevitable "sea of blue" comment! --Michael Goodyear  

5 *"She described the process of making refugees as "the new type of human being created by contemporary history...put into concentration camps by their foes and into internment camps by their friends"." Arendt did, or her mother did?

Hannah - clarified --Michael Goodyear   13:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

6 *Is it really right to title the section "Internment and escape" when she acquired release papers?

Yes. That is how she escaped by acquiring the papers during the general confusion, not as some people have mistakenly assumed, by being released. Clarified using her own words --Michael Goodyear   13:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Relationships[edit]
  • Is there really a need for all of the non-English in the friendships section?
Here I am also guided by Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, who justifies her usage by pointing out that Arendt's writing style used quotations extensively and was Germanic in nature, although Arendt, unlike Young-Bruehl, did not provide translations. Arendt repeatedly stressed the centrality of Muttersprache in her thinking and writing. --Michael Goodyear   13:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Work[edit]
  • "Her political legacy is her powerful defense of freedom in the face of an increasingly less than free world." This feels non-neutral; it's a very strong statement to present in Wikipedia's neutral voice.
That is a paraphrase of the cited source - "the vital power of her defense ...". I suppose one could argue that Roger Berkowitz is not neutral but few would disagree with his assessment. I toned it down a bit. --Michael Goodyear   15:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "she always imbued this with a spark of hope and confidence in the nature of mankind" As above.
Similarly that is a paraphrase of the following quotation from her work - I rephrased it slightly (the alternative to paraphrase is always to say - "according to X, she ...") --Michael Goodyear   15:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder why you have chosen to have a section on her political theory and system in the works section? Would this (important!) discussion not fit better in the thought section?
Because this was written as a general introduction to her work. The "Views" section deals with some specific views - which, since she covered so many topics, is by necessity selective.--Michael Goodyear   15:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Point taken that the introduction of natality in her thesis is important, but I'm not sure we need four sentences on it when we don't even have one sentence giving an outline of the thesis itself.
Point equally taken. Originally I had considered having a separate page, as in the German version. However, for current purposes I have added a brief outline of the structure of the work --Michael Goodyear   16:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "is one of the miracle of beginning" Again, I'm a little nervous about this being presented in Wikipedia's neutral voice.
Another example of the challenge of paraphrasing while preserving the nature of the source, in this case, Margaret Canovan. In this specific case I have preserved her phrasing by placing in quotation marks. --Michael Goodyear   16:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and also its most optimistic one" Ditto.
Ditto. Not my words but Professor Karin Fry. I decided to directly attribute it to her in this case --Michael Goodyear   16:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "freedom, education, authority, tradition, history and politics" Are these concepts not linked earlier? Also, is it definitely freedom of the will that is explored, rather than political freedom? (I've not read this.)
In the end I thought that maybe it was better to simply add the titles of the six essays although the constructs, such as freedom are woven throughout the work. To answer your specific question - it is a much broader treatment, from Aristotle through Kant. --Michael Goodyear   17:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "view of both Marxist and leftist views" Repetition of "view". I'm also a little surprised by the separation of "Marxist" and "leftist".
My fault for borrowing parts of the lead from the separate page to which the section links. Yes "view" is repetitive (fixed). I added links to emphasise the difference, between those related but certainly different political schools. There is enough problems with Republicans labelling socialists as communists this week, without lumping all left wing politics into Marxism! --Michael Goodyear   17:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You link "anthology" at a rather late mention
Agree, I think sections got shuffled - now at first mention --Michael Goodyear   17:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled by the section on Crises of the Republic. How many essays are there? And does "On Violence" need its own section?
I explained in the introduction to the section it "consists of four interconnected essays on contemporary American politics", also included in the subtitle. "On Violence", the third, is treated separately because it is referred to the most. I suppose one could summarize the other three at some stage --Michael Goodyear   17:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Stopping there for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you --Michael Goodyear   17:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer is asking for someone else to comment on the status[edit]

@Michael Goodyear and Josh Milburn: Both of you have put a lot into this review and it looks like it might be close to being done. The main comment that I will mention is that separation of the Career section and the Works section seems a little unexpected. That is to say, her career was largely the writing of her works, and her written works do represent her career. If the two sections can be brought together and merged into one section it looks like the article is nearly done. CodexJustin (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. As I explained above, the separation is quite deliberate and consistent with all the biography articles I have written, including GA and FA. The main distinction is between her life on the one hand and a discussion of her work on the other. Specifically Career places her work in the context of her life, Works addresses specific work in more detail. In fact her career was not largely about her written work. Her first major work was not written till she was 46, but her earlier life profoundly shaped her thinking and eventually resulted in the major works for which she is known. The interest is in examining the evolution of her thinking in response to the world events that were unfolding around her. Also her career, once she became an established academic, was as much about teaching and lecturing as writing. --Michael Goodyear   01:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This has been open a long time and if a general second opinion on whether it meets the criteria is required I would be happy to give it mine. In my opinion it easily meets all the criteria, except for the focus one. Readable prose size is approaching 90Kb, which is at the wrong end of WP:TOOBIG. I would suggest some splitting may be in order if trimming can't be agreed upon. The list of selected publications (which is not included in readable prose) is also oddly placed in the middle of the article and is without context, especially as there is already selected publications talked about. If it was me I would at least cut out all the works into their own article, but in reality most sections could do with a WP:split and WP:Summary style overviews. AIRcorn (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Noted. I would think the only feasible splitting would be the discussion of individual works, which could be thinned and the material moved to separate pages. Most, but not all, have their own page. --Michael Goodyear   18:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Consequently I have created daughter pages, and have started trimming the discussion of her work. This shifts the focus of the page more towards her life, rather than her work, though the two are inseparable.--Michael Goodyear   23:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)