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|
talk16:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
"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?
Done - Moved that up to be the 2nd sentence. Let me know if you think the first 2 sentences should be merged: I like keeping the 1st sentence very direct & simple, so I'm avoiding that. --
Noleander (
talk)
14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
"all 11eleven defendants"? Same with "12 Party members were indicted, only 11".
In that 1941 trial there were about a 18 SWP member that were convicted under the Smith Act, in a single trial. So "first person convicted" would be inaccurate. --
Noleander (
talk)
13:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)reply
"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.
"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."
"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,"
Could the first paragraph under "Prosecution" be split in three at "The interpretation of the texts was performed by witnesses..." and "Another important witness..."?
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 the ten month trial, the Red Scare grew in intensityintensified across America."
"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."
"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)reply
"of the Second World War" --> "of World War II" The former is decidedly British.
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)reply
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)reply
"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?
Done - Changed to " Yates was a landmark case which 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." --
Noleander (
talk)
13:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)reply
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!
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|
talk16:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
"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?
Done - Moved that up to be the 2nd sentence. Let me know if you think the first 2 sentences should be merged: I like keeping the 1st sentence very direct & simple, so I'm avoiding that. --
Noleander (
talk)
14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
"all 11eleven defendants"? Same with "12 Party members were indicted, only 11".
In that 1941 trial there were about a 18 SWP member that were convicted under the Smith Act, in a single trial. So "first person convicted" would be inaccurate. --
Noleander (
talk)
13:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)reply
"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.
"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."
"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,"
Could the first paragraph under "Prosecution" be split in three at "The interpretation of the texts was performed by witnesses..." and "Another important witness..."?
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 the ten month trial, the Red Scare grew in intensityintensified across America."
"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."
"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)reply
"of the Second World War" --> "of World War II" The former is decidedly British.
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)reply
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)reply
"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?
Done - Changed to " Yates was a landmark case which 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." --
Noleander (
talk)
13:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)reply
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!