Talk:Political bias/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Taking this up for review. Expect my initial comments to be posted within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

First up is the lead section.....

Lead

• Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to use a citation more than once in a row per paragraph, meaning ref#3 only needs to be used at the end of "voter behaviour and consequent political outcomes" while ref#4 only is required when finishing the paragraph's last sentence
• Don't capitalize "political" in "With an understanding of Political Bias"

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Types of bias in a political context

• This reads like a glossary in list form. Instead of using colons after each concept, use things like "is" or "refers to" or "involves" when defining the terms.
• I would merge some paragraphs to avoid choppy flow with super short ones.
• More WP:REPCITE; you don't need to implement the same citation more than once consecutively in a paragraph, especially after every individual sentence
• The third sentence on "concision bias" is quite a mouthful! I'd split it by turning the comma before "however" into a period.
• There should be periods at the end of "along with the actual coverage time from media and politicians" and "individuals with likeminded political beliefs will seek and affirm their opinions, discounting contradictory information".
• "little to now inter group challenges"..... no intergroup challenges
• Use straight quotation marks (' and ") instead of curly ones (’ and ”) per MOS:CURLY
• Periods should come before citations, so the "what has and/or definitely will occur" bit will need fixing
• Something about "This further speculative bias when the piece is not specifically labelled" doesn't read very well. Maybe it's missing an "is" between "this" and "further".
• Beginning three consecutive sentences with "this" as you do for "speculative content" feels monotonous
• Pretty sure "Partisan bias" should link to the concept in general (perhaps by using Wikitionary), not the Ideological bias on Wikipedia article that discusses this website itself

Not looking very promising so far. Nevertheless, I'll go through each section in the future before deciding whether to put the nomination on hold. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Political neutrality

• WP:REPCITE continues here; ref#4 ("When do we care about political neutrality? The hypocritical nature of reaction to political bias") only needs to be used right after the "directly controlling a normative acceptance of Political Bias" and "further enhance and advance an ideology" bits
• You shouldn't capitalize "political" in "political bias" unless it opens a sentence, and regardless aren't supposed to capitalize "bias" in such instances
• "Limitations of political neutrality exist" shouldn't contain external links to other sites

Political bias and framing

• Starting two consecutive sentences with "The framing effect" feels repetitive
• Don't capitalize "framing" within "Through understanding of Framing as an omnipresent process used in analysis to discern connections between aspects of reality and convey an interpretation of opinions that may not be entirely accurate" shouldn't be capitalized, and it looks like this sentence might be incomplete, but either way feels off

Two more down. The issues still continue. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of political bias in search engines

• The first paragraph is rather large compared to the second and third ones in this section. Try to even them out, and maybe merge the latter two.
• Ref#17 ("Study: Does Google have a Political Bias?") is a dead link. Either fix the URL or replace it with something else.
• Don't use external links within article prose like you have for "bias quantification framework".
• You've already linked "confirmation bias" earlier in the article. Unlink it here per WP:OVERLINK.
• Repeated instances of WP:REPCITE; Ref#20 ("Search bias quantification: investigating political bias in social media and web search") only needs to be used at the end of each paragraph it's currently used in

Political bias in the media

• Ref#18 ("The News Media: Communicating Political Images") should go after the first sentence's period
• I'll assume good faith that the source URL for File:Media Bias Study Table.gif (which I can't fully access due to login issues) contains the image, though would still prefer a more freely accessible link if any are available that contain it
• More MOS:CURLY issues
• Again, external links don't belong here (used for "game-theoretic model" in this section)

Hopefully my next batch of comments will be the last whenever those get posted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Attempts to counteract political bias

• More WP:REPCITE; just use ref#25 ("About the MRC") at the end of "further challenging the authors of said articles as to their politically biased writing", and ref#26 ("Transparency: An Assessment of the Kantian Roots of a Key Element in Media Ethics Practice") at the end of the paragraph
• Again, use straight quoation marks, not curly ones per MOS:CURLY
• I'd unlink Brent Baker when his name just redirects to Media Research Center, and we'll need a separate citation for details on him when he's not mentioned in the given link. Same goes for "BIASALERT" tags, Media Reality Check, and when NewsBusters was launched.

See also

• No issues!

References

• All URLs should have accessdates, publication names, and (when available) authors
• Dates should follow MDY or DMY format per MOS:DATE, and be consistent by using one of these styles or the other throughout the article
• Don't italicize Media Research Center

Further reading

• You don't need to provide any links here already cited within the article, and there's no point in using anything else unless it in some way is used as an in-text reference

External links

• See above comments on "Further reading"

Overall

• Prose: Major work is required here
• Referencing: You shouldn't have any dead links, also not every citation is formatted correctly, and all content needs to be properly supported by given references
• Coverage: All major aspects appear to be addressed without excessive details
• Neutrality: No bias detected (imagine the irony if I found any :P)
• Stability: Seems OK
• Media: Licensing isn't a concern
• Verdict: Unfortunately, there's too many problems with the prose and it really brings this article's quality down, so I'm failing. A thorough copyedit is needed before it can reasonably be promoted to GA. Perhaps the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors can be of assistance. Better luck next time! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

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.