Talk:The Society I Live in Is Mine/GA1

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 03:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Starting review. Please consider reviewing another article at WP:GAN. Ping me if I don't get to this by the weekend. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @AirshipJungleman29 ping :) czar  01:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but my computer has broken and my ability to edit WP is significantly reduced. Hopefully the solution will be resolved in a few days. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No rush at all and looking forward to your thoughts czar  01:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * A caption needs to be added for the infobox image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * A caption needs to be added for the infobox image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A caption needs to be added for the infobox image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Source spotcheck
I checked several citations, no problems with any of them. Source-text integrity is excellent, with multiple citations often being very nicely combined in the same sentence without WP:SYNTH or plagiarism. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

General comments
The biggest weakness of the article is the prose, which is somewhat imprecise (it is also a little verbose, but I think that is beyond the GA criteria). Examples to follow:
 * I would suggest splitting the lead into two paragraphs, one on the contents and one on the publication and reception. The lead sentence beginning "Goodman wrote to..." is confusing, as the first part implies that Goodman wrote letters as part of writing the book, instead of simply including previously-written ones. You could probably take two sentences to summarize the reception section, not one.


 * does not explicitly say that Goodman did the collecting, as it probably should.


 * I'm not sure about "bountiful...citizens"; the adjective is mostly applied to amounts of stuff, rather than numbers of people.
 * Rephrased, hopefully it suffices -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * you can't "spend focus"; "he focuses particularly" works fine.




 * a) you can't use the simple future "will be" b) "for more greatly distributing" needs rephrasing
 * Tried to word this better, hopefully this is grammatically correct and logical -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * "containing"? not the right word. do you mean "minimizing"?


 * Why are the discussions of the contents (details of the letters and reviews) not placed before the discussions of their themes, as seems much more logical? The last two paragraphs of the section should really be the first two.


 * do you mean "compared Goodman to a gadfly"? would suggest linking "gadfly", either to Gadfly (philosophy and social science) or horse fly, whichever one is meant.


 * advocation of what? what precisely does this mean?  this lacks all meaning without context
 * Although it is not part of the GA criteria, the reception section could use a better organisation in general: see the essay WP:RECEPTION for ideas.
 * do you mean it would fulfil the expectations of the followers?

Overall, a fair number of prose issues, so I'll put this on hold to let you work them out. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @AirshipJungleman29, thanks for your review! It's ready for another peek when you have a moment. czar  13:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)