User talk:Naomissweeting/malesherbesdraft

Peer review
Overall I think your article is really good! It helped me (someone who has never heard of him before) understand who he is.

You have a very good lead section which sets up who he is and it also mentions why he is important for the purposes of our class. However, it mostly just talks about his biography, and you should bring in a line about the other sections of the article. I think mentioning his importance in/around the time of the French Revolution might also help.

Your sections make a lot of sense, the breakdown you chose between biography, thought, and reception and legacy makes a lot of sense. However, the reception and legacy section seems rather short compared to the other two. I wonder if there is something else you might want to include here.

Your article is very clear, balanced in opinion and factual. It does a very good job of being unbiased. There is a lot of links to other pages. As far as sources go, it seems like you only used a few sources, but you got a lot of very good citations from them, citing from multiple pages. They all seem to be very reputable.

A few small notes: If this "775 Remontrances of the cour des aides" is famous, you should link to it's wikipedia page if it exists, if it does not exist, maybe using the word famous is being too biased here (although it very well could be famous, I am not very knowledgable about this part of history)

Use quotes for the quote in the final section.

Rseplow (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)rseplow

Peer Review-- Ricardo Mestre
The lead to this article was perfect! As soon as I read it I felt that I got an understanding of why Malesherbes is an important historical figure and some of the specific things that he is known for. I think that it is very balanced in covering the important aspects of the article and not overemphasizing any particular role beyond its relative importance.

The sections are organized in a way that I think is logical because first, the reader gets context through the biography, then they are given more information about his particular philosophical view regarding the enlightenment and the role of government in censorship. Finally, it ends with his legacy in reputation which builds off of the biography and thought section to foster what is the modern view on his role in history.

I think that the article provides a very balanced approach in that it first presents all of the information relating to Malesherbes life and thought in a way that is purely factual, and then in the interpretation of these items in gives multiple perspectives. The reader gets an understanding that Malesherbes role in history was nuanced, some view him as a great advocate for absolute freedom of the press and others believe he had many contradictory beliefs regarding his views on freedom of the press and his role in censorship. Some people view his villainization and ultimate execution in the French revolution as an attack on a completely innocent victim, while others believe that he is often painted in far too flattering a light and should instead be recognized as someone that played a role in a government that limited the freedom of speech.

The article is very effectively sourced, including information from academic journals (The Journal of the Historical Society and book published by the Yale University Press. I think that the article relies very heavily on a single source, a biography by John Allison on Malesherbes that was published in the Yale University Press. Of the 38 total citations, this singular source is almost half of them at 17 citations. If it is possible to substantiate this statements or perspectives made in this source with another source I think it would lend itself to a better-sourced article, but that said I understand how a reputable biography is a very good source for lots of the information contained in the article.

Overall, I am very impressed with the article as I think it was well written and presents a lot of information that gives a clear understanding of who Malesherbes is, why he is important, and what his reputation is in history. Beyond substantiating your heavily used source with other sources, I think that there are no changes that you need to make to the article, it is well balanced and, as I said above, it contains a lot of great information. Really great job!

-19:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpmestre (talk • contribs)