Wikipedia:Peer review/Paulo Francis/archive2

Paulo Francis
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it's necessary to discuss it's relevance. The article is about a person who lived mostly of his life abroad yet was virtually unknown outside Brazil. However, he was envolved in various political and cultural controversies of the time, and that perhaps adds him and international relevance. What do reviewers think?
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Cerme (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that you want to discuss the relevance of the topic; I'm not sure Wikipedia has a relevance policy! Judging by the amount of third-party coverage of the subject, even if many are non-English, it certainly meets notability guidelines. Some further comments:
 * Comments by Bradley0110


 * The article is over 4000 but the lead is just four lines. You should try to summarise every section of the article within the lead. The headings you have chosen for sections are a good guide to the paragraph of the lead (para 1 covers early life, para 2 covers middle years, etc).
 * Your writing has a stylistic flair that is engaging but sometimes lets opinion creep in without attribution, e.g. "[...]although he received an award as a rising star in 1952, he did not pursue the career, allegedly through lack of talent". This opinion is cited to Kucinski. Is it Kucinski's opinion or is he reporting someone else's? Either way, this should be made clear in the text.
 * Despite the interesting writing style, I don't feel fully informed from the Early life and career section. I think that the interspersing of quotes and analysis from Francis's biographers in such large measure is detrimental to the section.

More to come. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. What is lacking, I believe, in the Early Life section is something about Francis' place in the sociology of Brazilian intellectuals at his time - the transition from traditional, dependent from the State apparatus and "Frenchfied" Brazilians intellectuals of the Early XXth. Century to the independent, Americanized mid-century intellectuals such as Francis. But then I must find material in the sources that corroborates this view without offering unpublished research. I will wait until I have your complete comment and then roll up my sleeves on the articleCerme (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's definitely a good idea to write about how the young Francis fitted into the Brazil of the time (assuming something has already been written about it). Other points:

Bradley0110 (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The middle years section is much better formatted; it provides an overview of his career during the time and contextualises his writing and radicalism. This format should be adopted in the early years section as much as possible.
 * Another instance of opinion being worked into the text comes in the first paragraph of the later years section: "Shortly afterwards, however, for various and still ill-explained reasons, he made a sharp turn from Trotskyism to conservative views." The nearest citation is Kucinski. Is it Kucinski's opinion that Francis's ideological shift was "ill-explained"? If so, this should be stated in the text.
 * The sections themselves are quite large. Presumably no free images are available of Francis to break up the text? Further subheadings may be in order just to break up the wall of words.
 * Please also revisit User:Ruhrfisch's comments in the first peer review, as his comments are still relevant to the article as it is now.