Talk:Lawrence Lessig/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 22:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ  -US 22:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note - The section "New Hampshire Rebellion" has two "citation needed" tags. I would expect those to be addressed.

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Peer review tool
 * No issues ✅


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * None of the results are actually copyright issues, but quotes etc. ✅


 * Disambiguation links
 * No issues ✅


 * External links
 * Eight of the links come up as dead (marked in red)
 * Two of the links come up as most likely dead (marked in blue)

Well Written

 * I am a bit concerned about the informal tone this takes on occasion, grammatically there are not a lot of problems but on occasion I feel like the tone strays a bit. I will try to point out a few issues as I go through the sections.


 * Lead
 * There are quite a few sources in the lead - sources should be used in the body of the text where a fact is stated, using them in the lead makes it appear that they are sourcing something not in the body of the text. I don't think that is actually the case here, but I would like you to eliminate all sources in the lead that are covering the same information in the body of the article.
 * "election, but" does not need the comma
 * His presidential campaign is covered twice in the lead - I think that is a bit excessive.


 * Academic career
 * I believe "J.D." should be spelled out as "Juris Doctor" first time the term is used
 * Is "clerked" really a proper word?
 * "holding for a year the chair" the sentence should end with "for a year" not early on like it is.

Seems like an odd placement for this section. I would expect that to be at the end of the article, after it outlines what Lesig has done etc.
 * In popular culture


 * Political background
 * Reference 20 does not support the statements of "token liberal" or "chosen for his brilliance" - it supports that he was "left leaning"
 * Reference [22] should be move to after the comma
 * Source for "almost pursued a Republican political career."?
 * This whole sentence is unsourced "What was intended to be a year abroad at Cambridge, convinced him instead to stay another two years to complete an undergraduate degree in philosophy and develop his changed political values. During this time, he also traveled in the Eastern Bloc, where he acquired a lifelong interest in Eastern European law and politics."
 * The statement "Lessig remains skeptical of government intervention but favors some regulation, calling himself "a constitutionalist."" is unsourced
 * The sentence about John McCain is a little hard to read, can you possibly rephrase that?
 * Here is an example of a more informat tone "Lessig has known President Barack Obama since their days of both teaching law at the University of Chicago".


 * Code is law
 * I think this would be a good place to bring in some views of people - how was the book received? did it influence future decisions, laws, rulings etc.? More than just "he wrote this book" would be great and really help put it into perspective.

Same here for this book,
 * Remix Culture


 * Free Culture
 * First time "FSF" is mentioned it should be spelled out.
 * He proposed the concept "Free Culture" - again a little perspective on this please. It's tantamount to saying "on Monday I propsed going to Subway for Lunch" (not trying to be a smartass, just putting it in perspective)
 * Reference 31 bsically states "he held a speach", not really much coverage on content so the last part of the sentence is unsourced but needs one.
 * The "Free Culture" section is written as a bunch of one liners or short paragraphs. Basically a bullet list without the bullets. Please rewrite it.


 * Net neutrality
 * "Lessig has long been known to be a supporter of Net Neutrality" - one of those more informal phrases I mentioned, and it's unsourced.
 * "In 2006, he testified before the US Senate that he believed Congress should ratify Michael Powell's four Internet freedoms and add a restriction to access-tiering, i.e. he does not believe content providers should be charged different amounts." the last part of this seems tacked on and in a more informal tone.
 * This statement "The reason is that the Internet, under the neutral end-to-end design is an invaluable platform for innovation, and the economic benefit of innovation would be threatened if large corporations could purchase faster service to the detriment of newer companies with less capital." is presented as a fact, not as Lessig's belief or point of view, but a stone cold fact - that's not the case though is it?
 * How much of the preceeding paragraph is covered by reference 36? looking at the title I am not sure if it covers anything but the quote at the end?


 * Legislative reform
 * "if bureaucratic procedure" should be "if bureaucratic procedures"
 * Ending with three separate quotes and nothing else is sort of weird. And once again no perspective on this, no support or criticism of his stance. The measure of his work is not just by what he is saying but how it is perceived.
 * Since it is a print source I assume it covers all three quotes?


 * Legal challenges
 * I feel like there is something missing in the first sentence - "he was disappointed with his defeat" - but it's not really clearly stated what the Eldred case was, leaving it unclear exactly what's going on.


 * Killswitch


 * "Snowden received its World Premiere" should probably be "had" instead of "received"
 * "Congressman Grayson states" past tense, "stated"
 * "writes of Killswitch" - "wrote"
 * "remarks" - "remarked"
 * "asserts" - " asserted"


 * Money in politics activism
 * "At the iCommons iSummit 07, Lessig announced that he would stop focusing his attention on copyright and related matters and work on political corruption instead, as the result of a transformative conversation with Aaron Swartz, a young internet prodigy whom Lessig met through his work with Creative Commons." - seems to mash two sentences together, is a bit informal in tone.
 * "Lessig criticized the revolving door phenomenon in which legislators and staffers leave office to become lobbyists and have become beholden to special interests." - changes tense from past to present half way through.


 * Rootstrikers
 * Some perspective - he founded a website it went throgh changes and is now under the organization of someone else. But what did it accomplish? How did it further Lessig's cause?


 * Article V convention
 * What is a "national Article V convention"? it's unclear that it's the same thing as listed in the "main article" link since it's using two different terms.
 * What is the purpose of "Fix Congress First!"? Again just stating a fact, not providing the context.
 * "Lessig has called for state governments to call for a national Article V convention,[68] including by supporting Wolf PAC, a national organization attempting to call an Article V convention to address the problem.[69]" that is a lot of calling for Article V.
 * "An Article V convention does not dictate a solution, but Lessig would support a constitutional amendment that would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals, and he also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle." it ses that nothing would be lost by dropping the "An Article V convention does not dictate a solution, but" could be dropped without losing any content. And the fact that it's all presented in present tense is part of why I am a little thrown off by the tone. Maybe that is just me

Well Written

 * New Hampshire Rebellion
 * Has two "citation needed" tags
 * This should really be one paragraph
 * So is it a 185-mile march or 16-mile march? article kinda states both?


 * 2016 presidential candidacy
 * The second paragraph is just one short sentence dangling there below it.
 * The first two sentences are chronologically out of order, please reverse them.
 * "His campaign is focused" - "was focused" past tense.

Sources/verifiable
^Reference 5 needs more info added, at least accessdate and anything else that is appropriate
 * There are places that need sources, I have pointed them out in the section above.
 * Reference 1 needs the general data added for weblinks - dates, author, site etc.
 * Reference 8, same
 * 14 as well
 * 19
 * What makes Boing Boing a reliable source?
 * 22, more detail
 * Some references have a differnent date format, some have "January 1, 2010" others have "2010-01-01", pick one and be consistent
 * 26, more detail
 * 27, more detail
 * 28, more detail
 * 29, more detail
 * What makes randomfoo.net a reliable source?
 * Reference 33, not sure what this info is about
 * Is freesouls.sc a reliable source?
 * Reference 60 is no longer available
 * Reference 65 is dead
 * 61, more details
 * 62, more details
 * 66, more details
 * 71 is dead
 * 83, more details
 * 84 - dead
 * 85, more details
 * 86, more details
 * 87, more details
 * 88, more details
 * 91, more details
 * 92, more details - is a bare url
 * 94, more details
 * 96, more details
 * 91, more details

Broad in coverage

 * Broad-ish, good enough

Neutral

 * There are a few places where it goes a bit over the top without a reference, the use of term such as "brillant" needs to be expressed as an opinion, not a fact and with a source to support it.

Stable

 * Looks like it yes

Illustrated / Images

 * Licenses etc. check out, ✅
 * I would recommend put Alt text for all images, for FA that would be a reqirement so just something to consider.

Discussion

 * - my review is completed and I will be putting it on hold for improvements, if nothing has happened in 7 days i will fail it, if improvements are going on I can keep it open longer.  MPJ  -US 19:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you for such a thorough and detailed review! Unfortunately, I don't have the time in the next week to digest it and make improvements. (I had more time five months ago when I nominated it.) Maybe prolific (and relatively recent) page editors, , , , , or would be interested in taking a shot at pushing it over the line into GA status. -hugeTim (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - if you need more time I can easily keep it open 2-3 weeks, as long as I know it's not abandoned I have no problems with that at all.  MPJ  -US 23:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have not seen anyone pick up on this yet, so it looks like I may end up closing the review tomoreow if nothing changes. But at least you would have a list of stuff to do if you want to.submitbit for GA again later. Sorry about the bad timing.  MPJ  -US 20:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I see no activity. Have to fail it.  MPJ  -US 14:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)