Talk:Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders/GA2
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 09:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC), igordebraga ≠ 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The only issue I would potentially raise is the focus of the article. The content is all relevant and well sourced, but in reading it, some of the macro issues become potentially distracting. However, the article is not too long overall and none of the content is problematic in my opinion. Good job Noleander and MathewTownsend. —Zujine|talk 16:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Zujine: thanks for the feedback. Could you be a bit more specific? I'd like to improve the article, to address your concerns, but I'm not too sure what "the macro issues" refers to. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Second opinion
- I'd like to have somebody perform a quality check of my comments and see if I've missed anything. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do you want a review of your review or a second review of the whole article? If the latter is there anything you want the second opinion to focus on? AIRcorn (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Aircorn: thanks for volunteering to offer a second opinion (I'm the GAN nominator). FYI: User:Sp33dyphil put a "semi retired" banner on their user page a couple of days ago, so I'm not sure if they will respond to your query soon. For what it's worth, my guess is that Sp33dyphil is asking for a review of the entire article, since they say "...and see if I've missed anything" which means looking for things they missed which could only be accomplished by looking at the parts of the article not mentioned in their comments. I have no objection to another review of the entire article. But that is just my guess. Maybe they'll respond here and clarify. --Noleander (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do you want a review of your review or a second review of the whole article? If the latter is there anything you want the second opinion to focus on? AIRcorn (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Communist Party of the United States" --> "Communist Party USA" Official name, shorter, and removes the double occurrence of of in one sentence.
- Could "The trial is sometimes referred to as the Smith Act trial of 1949." be moved to the start to keep the boldened phrases together?
- "all
11eleven defendants"? Same with "12 Party members were indicted, only 11".
- "Cold War" should be capitalised.
- "Communist Parties" Generic usage doesn't require capitalisation.
- USSR or Soviet Union?
- "president Roosevelt" The title should be capitalised as per WP:JOBTITLES.
- "demonstrations: The" No need to capitalise The
- "New York city" City should be capitalised.
- "the Communist Manifesto" --> "The Communist Manifesto"
- "New Republic" --> "The New Republic"
- "The first persons convicted" Why persons?
- "the Communist Party" It's becoming increasingly necessary to replace "the Party", "the US Communist Party" and "the Communist Party" with "CPUSA" to minimise confusion.
- "when judge died" Missing article?
- Wikify "ally in World War II"?
- "Truman had become disturbed by the antagonistic behavior of the USSR, and abandoned President Franklin D. Roosevelt's policy of appeasing the former ally." It's either "Truman had become disturbed by the antagonistic behavior of the USSR, and thus abandoned President Franklin D. Roosevelt's policy of appeasing the former ally." or "Truman had become disturbed by the antagonistic behavior of the USSR, and had abandoned President Franklin D. Roosevelt's policy of appeasing the former ally."
- Communism, in its generic use, should not be capitalized.
- "information on Party members, with the goal of demonstrating the Party's subversive goals," --> "information on Party members to demonstrate the Party's subversive goals,"
- "29 June, 1945,"
- Could the first paragraph under "Prosecution" be split in three at "The interpretation of the texts was performed by witnesses..." and "Another important witness..."?
- Should "amicus" be italicised?
- Wikify "lynched in this country"
- That phrase is within a quote. The MOS on Linking says "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." Let me know if you think it should be linked or not, and I will.
- "During the
course of theten month trial, the Red Scaregrew in intensityintensified across America."
- Should words right after ":" be capitalised
- "the USSR detonated its first atomic bomb; and on October 1, 1949, the Communists in China prevailed in the Chinese Civil War and declared a communist state." --> "the USSR detonated its first atomic bomb; and on October 1, 1949, communists in China prevailed in the Chinese Civil War before declaring mainland China a communist state."
- "35 miles" Metric conversion?
- "which provided funding for the legal expenses" --> "which provided funded the legal expenses" Only change if the CRC provided 100% of funds.
- The sources are not clear on how much of the Foley Square trial $$ was provided by the CRC. The bail funds were 100% paid for by the CRC, but the attorneys' fees appear to also have been paid for by other donors. So the sentence probably should continue to be worded to suggest that the CRC only paid for part of the legal fees. --Noleander (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- "of the Second World War" --> "of World War II" The former is decidedly British.
- Be consistency about whether titles should be capitalised. Justice vs justice, etc.
- "Korean war" Proper noun...
- Travelled I hate these minor British vs American English differences. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions
As Phil took a WikiBreak without finishing the review, I'll see if I can finish it. Read the lead and all after the points he raised, no issues so far! :) igordebraga ≠ 01:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
An excellent article overall, a few nitpicks so far:
- The "Communist Trial Ends with 11 Guilty" article appears four separate times as a reference - can it be condensed into just one? And all the instances really use the same page (31)? And you can split the aggregate refs (such as the added book page on Ref 40) into their own refs!
- Maybe add a link to Kangaroo court when the term appears?
- Done However MOS:QUOTE says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." However since that term may not be familiar to non-US readers, I've made an exception and linked it. --Noleander (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Yates was a landmark case that refined the limits of freedom of speech: It held that contemplation of abstract, future violence may not be prohibited by law, but that urging others to act in violent ways may be outlawed." Can it be re-written in a single sentence, or in a way it doesn't need the colon?
igordebraga ≠ 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Then I have no issues. I had not heard of this before the review, and learned a lot from the article, it deserves to pass! Congratulations on the good work!
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
igordebraga ≠ 17:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)