Talk:Throffer/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 15:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * Is there a good link for proposal (or intervention) which relates to the philosophical aspects of one?
 * No, sadly not. It's a long way from proposition, and closer to business proposal. It's just a clumsy way of referring collectively to threats and offers (and, indeed, throffers/neutral proposals). J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "by Hillel Steiner" perhaps introduce who he is, i.e. "Canadian philosopher Hillel Steiner"?
 * I've gone for "political philosopher"- while Canadian, he was based in the UK for almost all of his career. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "by Hillel Steiner, in the 1970s," no need for the first comma.
 * I'm trying to work out a better way to say this, but if I remove the first comma I imply that others may have used it before the 1970s when, of course, I mean to say that Steiner was the first person ever to use the term. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * " Robert Stevens" (et seq.) since he's not even linked, again it's worth saying why what he says should even be listened to. Especially as later in the lead you do have red linked folks.
 * I don't honestly know who Robert Stevens is- though this paper is moderately well cited, I haven't been able to find much about him. I've explained who the writers in the lead are, and thrown out some links- most of these people are notable, but articles on obscure musicians are more popular than articles on well-published academics! J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a hint for the non-expert readers amongst us, two solid sections with not a single wikilink (Steiner's and Stevens's accounts) is a little turgid. In particular the second half of Stevens's account which is based in logic could use some kind of illustration (if that's possible).
 * Looking into this. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "as a meas of" typo.
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "W1-3" en-dash needed.
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "W5-7" ditto.
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "in the thought experiment of the lecherous millionaire" maybe worth creating even a stub article on this thought experiment.
 * There's a lot of literature on it. I'll look into this- is it at least clear right now what it is from my one-line summary? J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's clear, but I think if it's genuinely relevant, you're line on it plus a few refs and a tiny bit of expansion means we have a new stub... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Created something- I'll maybe get around to expanding it at some point. As I say, a lot of literature. Pretty much every book on coercion alludes to it. J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs 23, 24, 28 need en-dash.
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * " Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel. St. Martin's Press. pp. 440-72." needs en-dash.
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

GA checklist

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

On hold given the various minor concerns above. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * A few comments above regarding MOS issues
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Could use more work to introduce the significance of the various commentators in the article to make their points of view more relevant to non-expert readers
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Ok, I've created the following table. What do you think? I could do something similar for Steiner. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, I think that's better than we currently have. If anything it's going to break things up a little, and at best it'll give someone an easier view on the various positions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added it to the article. I'll do what I can to increase further readability a little. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)