Talk:Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/GA1

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

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 06:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * I'm not sure if "authored by two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Anthony Lewis" counts as Puffery, but I'd sure like to see it shortened to "by Anthony Lewis", or, say, "by American author Anthony Lewis".
 * "A repeated theme emphasized in the book": isn't it a common attribute of themes that they are "repeated" and "emphasized"?
 * The article is awfully quote heavy, and I think a lot of the quotations would be better paraphrased and summarized.
 * I can see you've cut back on the use of quotes, but it still comes off as quote-heavy to me. There are a lot of instances where, I think, paraphrasing the quote would lend itself to smoother reading:
 * current: In an interview with the author, Deborah Solomon of The New York Times Magazine observed, "This has been a theme in American politics, the use of fear-mongering to justify repression."
 * paraphrased: In an interview with the author, Deborah Solomon of The New York Times Magazine observed that American politics has frequently used fear to justify repression.
 * ...which, aside from being a little shorter, reads more smoothly. Unless there is a reason to use a particular quote (you don't want to paraphrase "There is nothing to fear but fear itself", for example), I think you'll find that the prose is a lot easier and more enjoyable to read if you don't chop up the text with frequent quotes.
 * You might want to cut down on duplicate links (see WP:REPEATLINK). There is a script you can use to help catch them.  I thought there was a tool somewhere that did the same thing without adding a script, but I can't seem to find it.  In particluar, you link The New York Review of Books twice in the lead alone.
 * You might want to cut down on duplicate links (see WP:REPEATLINK). There is a script you can use to help catch them.  I thought there was a tool somewhere that did the same thing without adding a script, but I can't seem to find it.  In particluar, you link The New York Review of Books twice in the lead alone.


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Provides extensive criticism of the book, positive and negative, in the "Reception" section
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1 fair use image for infobox with appropriate FUR; 2 images from Commons
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Good article, with an editor who is quickly responsive to feedback. I enjoyed reading it, too.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 05:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 fair use image for infobox with appropriate FUR; 2 images from Commons
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Good article, with an editor who is quickly responsive to feedback. I enjoyed reading it, too.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 05:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)