Talk:Christopher Hitchens/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * This is a prime example of an article built up incrementally by a series of small edits adding one line or two, and it certainly shows. The fatal flaw of the article is that for large stretches, it reads like a succession of unrelated atomic claims, which would need to be interwoven, given added context and judged by length and emphasis for their appropriate weight to be appropriate. The Literature, Hitchens and The Nation staff (almost wholly quotations), Awards and accolades (unintegrated list), and Regarding specific individuals (names dropped with little context) (sub)sections all suffer from this. A good way to judge the quality of the prose of an article is to read it aloud and listen if it flows naturally as a speech – this speech would be rather too abrupt and of varying focus.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The citations in this article are of extremely variable quality, ranging from fully detailed citations to bare urls, and sources from The New York Times to YouTube and dubious blogs. While the article has a high density of inline citations, several claims appear without any indication of which source supports them - claims beginning like "At the New Statesman, he became known as an aggressive left-winger, stridently attacking", "Hitchens told an interviewer that he thinks ...." as well as the Family subsection go entirely unsourced, for instance.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major aspects are addressed, and as far as top-level section go there is good balance between career biography, work and personal, well done. Far too much weight is given to "Hitchens and The Nation staff" and "Use of alcohol" (particularly concerning for a WP:BLP). The Politics section has an interesting and concise paragraph on Hitchen's views of socialism and capitalism, but then devolves into a laundry list of other issues, leaving the reader without a clear sense of context. The bibliography and external links sections are too detailed and rather overwhelming – it might be worth considering splitting the former into its own article and integrating or culling the latter. The Ethnic identity section seems like an aside, a distraction, which goes for the many ultrabrief subsections of the article - if an issue cannot be broadly covered in seven to ten lines or so, it doesn't deserve its own (sub)section and ought to be integrated elsewhere.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Issues of undue weight aside, the article satisfies Raul's law – I cannot tell what point of view the imaginary author of the article has on its subject
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Surprisingly stable given the controversy attached to the subject, which speaks well to the resilience of the referenced material.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images should have full descriptions; location, occasion in the case of the infobox; date, indicators as to who is who, and context for the occasion for the "Is God Great" image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The basic structure and sources needed are there, and the article has much potential, but would need substantial rewriting for the prose and focus to be up to standard. I apologise if this review comes across as overly critical, but it is only because this is not a bad article, but one whose quality varies from incisive to aggravating so often, and it shows much unrealised potential. Best of luck with the development, and thank you for all your work thus far.  Skomorokh  18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)