Talk:The Anarchist Cookbook/GA1

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

Reviewer: Berrely (talk · contribs) 13:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Hello! I'm Berrely and I'll be reviewing this Good Article nomination. Below I will assess this article based on the Good Article criteria, and add comments where needed.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Can't find any issues with grammar, the article flows quite well.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * One concern:
 * Lead shouldn't have citations per WP:CITELEAD. The lead is a brief overview of the content in the article; it should not provide new information. Please remove these citations. ✅
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Most of the refs are formatted with CS1 citation templates, however I found a few bare URLs, such as citations 3, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Articles should maintain a consistent citation style, so please convert these bare URLs to templates. ✅
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Can't find problems with the sources. Salon seems fine here.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Section 3.2 says Advocates of anarchism dispute the association of the book with anarchist political philosophy. definetely a contentious statement, no source. Section 4.1: In 2001, British businessman Terrance Brown created the now defunct website anarchist-cookbook.com and sold copies of his derivative work, titled Anarchist Cookbook 2000. No source once again. ✅
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Nothing on Earwig.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * I think in a non-fiction book, a section regarding what the book actually contains is probably the most important. The only real mention of the content of the book is in section 2.2, in the last sentence, with the incredibly brief The chapters of The Anarchist Cookbook include descriptions and detailed instructions in hand-to-hand combat, explosives, booby traps, drugs, tear gas, sabotage and demolition, surveillance, improvised weapons and other topics related to anarchism. That's it. Nothing else. If not a section, I think it's important that there is more than a sentence on the content of the book. Per below.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Stays on topic the whole way through.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No puffery, words to watch and a NPOV throughout.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Usually at least a few days between edits, no recent edit wars.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * There's one image in the article. For the section on the FBI analysis there could be the cover of this public domain report, or maybe add a fair use rationale and add an image of Lyle Stuart. Or an image in the creation section for context of the Vietnam War? As well as this, I don't think the front cover is in the public domain, however it may fall under c:COM:TOO. ✅
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Cover doesn't have a caption. ✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Currently there are a few problems that need to be addressed, and I don't think 7 days is enough time to address them. The article needs more information about the book's contents, more images, and the removal of unsourced content. This article can definetely be improved to GA status, if these concerns are addressed. If they are not within 7 days, I will have to fail the article. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 13:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the content of the book itself, there are issues of legality on how much we can put here on Wikipedia. The 'forward' and 'content' subsections provide a brief overview of the book's content but anything pertaining to actual anarchism practices cannot be added here without drawing the ire of US and international bodies. I can open a discussion on WikiProject Anarchism to get the specificities. I am a bit confused about your "Out of Scope" criteria, since the 'Content Summary' section covers two paragraphs on the book's content. Etriusus (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources have been fixed, unsourced material removed, and images added. Just need clarification on the "It addresses the main aspects of the topic" since that, in theory, is already done. Etriusus (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, seems my overriding memory of NOTCENSORED defies any common sense, so I can see why a more detailed section re that wouldn't be appropriate. Also, it seems you simply added a non-free image without a rationale, I'll go ahead an add a rationale for that, and I recommend reading WP:NFUR in the future when using non-free files. I also noticed, in the start of the article, there is a one line paragraph about censorship. You removed the source for this in per CITELEAD, however this is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, so it's best to either add information about it in the article, or just remove it from the lead (the notable instances section about 2 cases isn't really enough). — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 13:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching that error, it's what I get for editing at 2 am. I cut the censorship line. Please let me know if there's anything else that is necessary.Etriusus (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the concerns. This article has been promoted to Good Article status. Congratulations! — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 17:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)