Talk:Political Animals and Animal Politics/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 06:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Starting first close reading. More soonest.  Tim riley  talk    06:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is plainly of GA standard and could, in my view, have gone straight to peer review and FAC. But as we are at GAN, a few points with the GA criteria in mind: Nothing to frighten the horses, or any other animals, in that little litany. If the article goes to FAC in due course I may have a few more quibbles about drafting and plain English, but for GA purposes the prose will do. Over to you to consider the above, and we can then proceed to the formalities. –  Tim riley  talk    07:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "focussed" – both in the lead and later: although this spelling squeaks into the dictionaries, "focused" is preferred by the OED, Chambers and Collins, and by Fowler. The OED calls the double-ess version "common but irregular". The word is one of four that I think of as similarly strange, along with ‘biased’, ‘budgeted, and ‘benefited’, where double letters seem called for but aren't.
 * Yes, OK, fixed. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Production and release
 * "…something previously considered only at the margins of work otherwise about the environment/resource management, or else by those more primarily interested in moral issues." I don't doubt it, but it's an important and wide statement, which could do with a citation.
 * Done, though it's primary, I'm afraid; I think this is OK insofar as I am opening with "the workshop aimed"; it's necessarily couched in the perspective of the organisers. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely persuaded that we need to know that Michel Vandenbosch "also joined the participants for dinner", particularly as the subordinate clause renders the sentence decidedly convoluted
 * Yes, that's fair. Removed. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Wissenburg and Schlosberg identify that.." – the verb sounds rather a strong endorsement of their findings; a more neutral word such as "conclude", "posit" or "suggest" might be safer.
 * I see what you mean. Changed. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "justice" – do readers really need a blue link? The MoS tells us not to link "everyday words understood by most readers in context", and justice strikes me as being such a word.
 * Justice (as in theory of justice or A Theory of Justice) is a technical term in political philosophy; it's what a lot of political philosophers spend most of their time talking about. So, I would want a link to science to feature prominently in an article about the philosophy/a philosopher of science, despite the fact anyone reading that article would already have a good idea what science was. If you disagree, I can change it! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Synopsis
 * "societal implementation of norms" – this would be better in plain English; I almost understand it, I think, but not quite.
 * Rejigged. This is basically the "political turn" stuff talked about above. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "the increased present" – is this a typo for "the increased presence"?
 * It is indeed. Thanks. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Contributions
 * "sympathy" gets a blue link but "empirical" and "normative", below it, don't? Ahem!
 * Again, I'd rather keep sympathy as it's used in a rather technical way; I've added links for empirical and normative. I'm not completely happy with the target articles, but I think they'll do the job. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "early 20th century Sweden" – if, as I assume and hope, this article goes to FAC, someone will call for hyphens in this phrase, but that someone isn't me. I agree with the grammarian reported by Gowers who said, "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad."
 * Noted. I've been trying to become more aware of hyphens myself recently. It's been a frustrating experience. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Academic reception
 * I was taken aback to find you extensively quoting or paraphrasing yourself, but having checked WP:RS very carefully I see no reason at all to object. You seem to me to comply faithfully with the letter and the spirit of the Wikipedian rules.
 * Yes. I'd imagine it raises some eyebrows on Wikipedia, but, as I'm sure you know, it's quite common in specialised encyclopedias; people will typically be commissioned to write an article on x because they are themselves an expert on x, and one displays their expertise by having a prominent place in the literature. I've tried to focus more on Garner's review, as Garner is a much more significant figure than I am, but when my own article is one of the only reviews of the book, I can't really overlook it. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this review and your kind words. I have replied to your comments inline. I would like to see this appear at FAC at some point, but I'm going to give it a few months to make sure no late reviews appear and so that the two reviews I cite can be properly published (though, with both available freely online at the moment, I don't feel guilty about citing "forthcoming" work). Josh Milburn (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria It occurs to me that if you do go on to FAC, it would be as well to make the authors sortable by surname in the table (if sorting is needed at all, which I'm not sure it really is here), but the present arrangement meets GA standards in my view. Reading and reviewing this article has been instructive and interesting, and it is a pleasure to confer the GA gong.  Tim riley  talk    11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 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:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks very much. The authors are indeed sortable by surname in the table; I've used sortname. Or was that not what you meant? A pleasure working with you, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorting: sorry! My aged wits were plainly wandering.  Tim riley  talk    12:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)