Talk:Semi-periphery countries/GA1

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

Reviewer: @harej 01:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * The introduction throws a lot of technical terms into the mix, and while they are linked, a brief explanation would also be good.
 * "as Abu Lughod writes" who is Abu Lughod?
 * "the impoverished Fourth World" this is the first I have heard of the "fourth world" -- then again, I don't pay attention to macroeconomic research. I have linked it as it is a technical term and not exactly in the common vocabulary as "third world" etc. are.
 * "Generally stated, we contend that semiperipheral areas are likely to generate new institutional forms that transform system structures and modes of accumulation.[4] These changes often lead to the upward mobility of these same semiperipheral actors in the core/periphery hierarchy[5]. We will see that the semiperiphery is fertile ground for social, organizational, and technical innovation and has an advantageous location for the establishment of new centers of power." I need to emphasize at this time that Wikipedia articles are not dissertations. Encyclopedias, as tertiary resources, should be compiled based on already-published research with no novel synthesis. The relevant editorial policies are No original research and Reliable sources. If those claims are mentioned in the document which you have cited, rephrase it to indicate that you are referring to already-published material rather than making a claim of your own.
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * Make sure that citations are placed after punctuation; this is certainly unconventional outside of Wikipedia, but on Wikipedia, it's accepted practice.
 * "between other, more major core cities" this method of linking is not really practiced on Wikipedia. It would be better to explicitly write out "between other, more major core cities such as Baghdad, Cairo, and Aden". The usage above with "one power" is more acceptable because it correctly emphasizes the fact that the Mongol Empire was the one power. The same can't be said for "Baghdad" and "other".
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * The entire article is referenced to reliable sources.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Plenty of that, though ISBN codes would be nice.
 * C. No original research:
 * None that I have seen.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * It definitely covers all the bases, though there is plenty of history yet not as much information about the effects of there being a semi-periphery. Is it correct to assume there is no more to say about the effects of the semi-periphery?
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yes
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Stable
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Yes
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * More or less, though the Hereford map should either be placed in a different section or not be in the article.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Please address the concerns about the article, especially the prose at the beginning of the article.

@harej 02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Another review
I've now copyedited much of the article. Here are my remaining concerns.

The following sentences need to be clarified:
 * "These changes often lead to the upward mobility of these same semi-peripheral actors in the core/periphery hierarchy."
 * "The semi-periphery plays a vital role comparative to that of the middle trading groups within an empire." What are 'middle trading groups'? Either furnish a link or explain.
 * "These countries use dependent development to integrate into the world economy and establish local dominance." What is dependent development?
 * I've attempted to clarify these sentences. Let me know if you think they need further development. Jcl41 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

History:
 * There is a huge gap in coverage; it goes directly from the 13th century to the 19th. A lot happened in that time, especially late 15th century onward.

Otherwise, the article is considerably closer to Good Article status. @harej 04:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Failed for now
Due to copyright issues, as pointed out on the talk page, this article has failed. Please re-nominate the article when the issues have been cleared up. @harej 03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)