Wikipedia:Peer review/Ayn Rand/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it currently has GA status and I'm looking to take it to FAC. Before you start, I'll note up front two issues that I'm already aware of: 1) there is a passage tagged for failed cite verification that needs to be fixed or removed, and 2) the lead is not a proper summary of the article. No need to harp on those, but any other feedback (including nitpicking) that would help smooth the way to FA is appreciated. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I read through the article and found it sharply written and well organized. You could perhaps clarify the location and prestige of the "State Technicum for Screen Arts". There were also a pair of sentences ending in a preposition, but, other than the two items you mention, I can find little to criticize. Nice job.—RJH (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I added a wikilink and location to help clarify about the Technicum, and changed one of the preposition-ending sentences. Can you help me with finding the other one? I'm not seeing it, but I've read the article so many times that I may just be reading through it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Funny, now I can't find it either. Sorry. =) —RJH (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- There have been some other changes, so maybe it got revised along the way. So thanks for the feedback regardless. Also, if anyone else happens to look at this PR, I would love to get feedback from additional reviewers if anyone is interested. --RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Funny, now I can't find it either. Sorry. =) —RJH (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- I added a wikilink and location to help clarify about the Technicum, and changed one of the preposition-ending sentences. Can you help me with finding the other one? I'm not seeing it, but I've read the article so many times that I may just be reading through it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Sandman888 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. Follow-ups interpolated below. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there are several problems with WP:NPOV in this article, given that Rand is foremost a political figure, there's not much criticism and if there is criticism you leave Rand followers with the last word.
- This does happen in some cases (not in all, see Doncram's comments below and my reply). There is already some talk page discussion about rewriting the 'Philosophy' section, so hopefully that will help provide balance.
- Academia: you quote Chris Sciabarra for this: "The left was infuriated by her anti-communist, procapitalist politics, whereas the right was disgusted with her atheism and civil libertarianism."[102] as a reason why nobody studies her philosophy. There a plenty of respectable philosophers who has explained the lack of interest in Rand, e.g. Robert Nozick, from an academic perspective and not appealing to conspiracy.
- I don't believe a conspiracy was being suggested, but I will see what I can locate in terms of other meta-perspectives about academic response. Sciabarra is a notable expert about Rand, so these would probably be additive rather than replacing mention of his viewpoint. If you have any particular sources or quotes to suggest, that would be great.
- Contemporary reception: it's a bit too much of "then one reviewer said this, but another said that".
- Do you any suggestions around what you think should be there instead/in addition, or an example in another article?
- Legacy: first paragraf - citation needed!
- If you mean the people influenced by her, I believe a lot of the entries are redundant to mentions of the same people elsewhere in the article. I'll see about citing and/or relocating the mentions.
- Popular interest: "sell in large numbers" is a bit vague.
- That sentence was redundant to more specific sales info earlier in the same section, so I just removed it.
Comment by doncram (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Very interesting article; i read carefully down through "Legacy" section and then skimmed. The section "Contemporary reception" consists mainly of negative reviews; I was expecting that there would be several rejoinders to the negative reviews saying such as: nonetheless, in 19xx, an additional X thousand copies were sold; then more negative reviews for the next book or whatever; then even more, an additional Y copies of book were sold. However there is no rejoinder in the contemporary section. The Legacy section, following, provides some suggestion of that, but the section title suggests her reach and impact were all after her death. So, some more facts about book sales and other impact, contemporarily, and perhaps some revising of section titles might be called for. Hope this helps! --doncram (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional feedback. I can't help noticing a tension between your feedback and Sandman888's. On the one hand, Sandman sees criticisms being followed by responses that "leave Rand followers with the last word" and doesn't like that. On the other hand, you see criticisms that aren't followed by responses and think they should be. I'm not sure whether there is a compatible way to address both concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- To me this issue seems somewhat of a personal preference. I didn't find anything in WP:CRITS that could serve as a guideline, other than the need to be fair and balanced.—RJH (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional feedback. I can't help noticing a tension between your feedback and Sandman888's. On the one hand, Sandman sees criticisms being followed by responses that "leave Rand followers with the last word" and doesn't like that. On the other hand, you see criticisms that aren't followed by responses and think they should be. I'm not sure whether there is a compatible way to address both concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)