Wikipedia:Peer review/Foley Square trial/archive2

Foley Square trial
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for Featured Article status. This article is currently wrapping-up a GA review, but the GA criteria do not scrutinize the prose with the same level of detail as an FA review. I'd appreciate it if the PR reviewer were someone familiar with the FAC process and the FA criteria, and is willing to nit-pick the prose.
 * Previous peer review

This is really an interesting topic. You won't be disappointed if you take on this review! Thanks, Noleander (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Nikkimaria
 * Some repetition of wikilinks - Stalinist twice in the same subsection, Peekskill Riots thrice in a paragraph, etc
 * Done --Noleander (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "McCarthy era" or "McCartyite era" would be more correct that "McCarthyism era"
 * Done.  Google hit count suggested  "McCarthy era", so I went with that.  --Noleander (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "which advocated for radical restructuring the US government" - should be either "radical restructuring of" or "radically restructuring"
 * Done - Used former. --Noleander (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a phrasing that will avoid the "protesters...protested" repetition? Similarly "trial...trial" in the fourth paragraph
 * Done --Noleander (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Background hatnote should be Cold War
 * Done --Noleander (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in use of US vs U.S.
 * Done --Noleander (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In general, there seems to be some unnecessary repetition, both in phrasing and in content. For example, you mention thrice in as many paragraphs that the USSR was a US ally in WWII. Another example is "Despite the relatively small size of the CPUSA, in 1945 the FBI and the Justice Department embarked on a campaign against the CPUSA" - no need to say CPUSA twice
 * Done --Noleander (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "ten month trial" -> "ten-month trial". Same also applies to other measurements used as adjectives
 * Done --Noleander (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "the indictments might cause liberals voters to shift their support" - is that a US phrasing? I would be more accustomed to "liberal voters"
 * Done That was a typo.  --Noleander (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What ended up happening with Foster, if he wasn't tried? Also, would he be considered a "defendant" despite not being tried?
 * Done - I added a sentence about his later life in the "Release from prison" section, where the other defendant's later lives are summarized. Regarding "defendant":   Yes, I believe Foster was a defendant, because one becomes a defendant when formally charged, and he was indicted (charged).


 * Okay, I'm not used to US English, but isn't it "working-class"? Is the US convention to use fewer hyphens?
 * Done - It is used as an adjective, so the hyphen needed to be added. Thanks for catching that. --Noleander (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "it was the longest federal trial in history" - probably best to clarify US history, unless you actually mean worldwide
 * Done --04:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "a conventional political Party" - why the caps?
 * Done - That was a typo. --Noleander (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "a non-communist oath" is a bit ambiguous - do you mean "anti-communist", or that they were required to state they were not communists, or something else?
 * Done - Changed to "...required all faculty to take an oath asserting that they were not communists" --Noleander (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Be careful about assuming a US reader - even when links are provided, a short gloss for terms/names like Alger Hiss would be helpful
 * Done - changed to "... government employee Alger Hiss was accused of being a communist". I'm not too sure where to draw the line on defining US-centric terms/persons/events: I don't want to go overboard (after all, the wikilinks mitigate the problem).   If you can identify particular ones, I'll take care of them.  --Noleander (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "after the revelations about Stalin" - you haven't yet mentioned what these were
 * Done - changed to "... after the revelation of Stalin's Great Purge" --Noleander (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Spell out "%" in article text
 * Done --Noleander (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Step_by_step_greene.jpg needs author's date of death
 * The author/cartoonist was Sidney Joseph Greene, from New York. He was fairly minor (he is not Sid Greene) and I cannot find out when he died.  According to  he was married in NY in 1916.  So, I'm guessing he died sometime between 1930 and 1950.  Since he was US, and the cartoon was published in the US, the US copyright laws apply, and I think anything prior to 1923 is now public domain.  The Commons page  has a Australia/EU copyright box  (in addition to the US box) so that is confusing, since the death of the author comes into play in Australia & EU, but not US.  I think the picture is public domain, since it was published in 1919.  Let me know if more needs to be done. --Noleander (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * File:William_z_foster.JPG: licensing tag used requires fair-use rationale and source/copyright info. You also have other images with that tag that are missing copyright info
 * Done - I removed the Foster pic from the article. Thanks for catching that.   I see no other images with similar problems:  the other pics are either public domain; or require fair-use rationale (and in those images, the fair use rationale is present and justified). --Noleander (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Justice_William_O_Douglas.jpg is missing date, source (link provided goes to a different image), and cannot use the author+70 tag where author is unknown. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - I replaced the pic of Douglas with one that is 100% public domain, so there is no issue there any longer.  The original photo is from Library of Congress .  I updated the source link in the commons, so that is correct now.  The LOC web site says "no known restrictions on copyright". --Noleander (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary separator
(ec)Agree that the topic is interesting. Some question remain about the naming of a legal case after a courthouse where hundreds if not thousands of cases have been tried. Also, some quibbles with the impartiality of the article, considering the author used primarily journalists and not legal scholars. Hopefully that will get sorted out here. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * MT: Thanks for the feedback.  Could you be more specific regarding issues of impartiality?  What specific words/phrases/sections need to be addressed?  And why do you say "primarily journalists"?   The sources are all reliable, neutral, and scholarly, with the exception of Victor Navasky's book, which is only used a few times, usually as background, and in conformance with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.   Could you be specific on the material that you think is from faulty sources?   If you can be specific, I'll remedy any problems you identify.    --Noleander (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My hesitations are voiced on the talk page by me and by others. I feel the article is not narrowly focused on the legal trial, as legal trial articles are, but describes a political and sociological period, including much that is exterior to the trial. If you changed the title to make it clear that this is not a legal article, it would be better. This article is not a legal analysis of the legal issues. As the templates at the bottom of the article indicate, this is not primarily about the law, nor specifically about the trial, but about political and historical issues regarding McCarthyism, the Cold War etc. I have no quibble with your sources for the political, sociological, historical angle, but they do take a particular point of view. To me, the trial is only part of the article, while the article wanders into "Aftermath", "Events outside the courtroom", "Prison", "Release from prison", "Rise of McCarthyism" etc., none of which have to do specifically with the trial. The first section under "Trial" gets into newspaper coverage, what was happening outside the courtroom etc. and is not about courtroom events. This was a very charged period in US history, and it still evokes emotional responses in many people.  MathewTownsend (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detail.  A few more questions so I can better understand your concerns:   (1) Title of article: There are 3 candidate titles, all discussed in the Talk page: each has their own pros and cons.   WP:TITLE suggests that the current title is best.  What other title do you suggest, and which criteria in WP:TITLE support the alternative title?   (2) ".. but they do take a particular point of view. " - Could you be more specific?   Are you suggesting that there are other viewpoints that have been omitted?  What viewpoints?  What sources support those viewpoints?    (3) "To me, the trial is only part of the article .."   - The article covers all the material that the sources relate to the trial.    The sources (not me) made the association of McCarthyism, etc to the trial.  Can you identify some material in the article that the sources do not associate with the trial?   Thanks for helping out ... if you could frame your answers in terms of what the sources say (rather than your personal gut feeling) that would be most helpful.  Thanks.  --Noleander (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, I'm totally burned out on this article through my past engagement with it. I think I gave you quite a bit of feedback then, at Talk:Foley Square trial/GA1. I'm uncomfortable with the way this article is framed. Just because sources talk about a legal trial, that doesn't mean that an article focusing on the trial should include them. Previously I spent a great deal of time reading all the sources and looking for others. I just can't do more. I'm very sorry. I gave you my opinion above. That's all I can do.  MathewTownsend (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear you are burnt out. I'm trying to address your concerns, but so far you've been rather vague. Final questions:  If you think the current title is deficient, could you at least identify a title that you think would be better (and state why)?  One more thing:  You say "Just because sources talk about a legal trial, that doesn't mean that an article focusing on the trial should include them."   That seems to conflict with WP:OR and WP:V which say the opposite: that editors must put aside their own gut feelings and instead carefully follow the guidance of the sources.   Can you name some specific section of the article that you think should be removed (and explain how it is not related to the trial)?   Bottom line:  I'll implement any specific changes you suggest (provided they are consistent with the sources). --Noleander (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Don't go by me. As I said, I'm burned out and can't go through the article again and do it justice. So don't worry about what I say! As for the title, you are naming a trial by its location, where hundreds if not thousands of trials have been held. Trials have a specific name  xxx v. xxx (or whatever) that specifically identifies it. I'm not clear why this one doesn't have one.  MathewTownsend (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I respect your opinion, and really appreciate the help you gave in the GA review.  In fact, I've opened an RfC at the article, so we can get a few other editors to provide opinions.--Noleander (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)