GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Asilvering ( talk · contribs) 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The first two paragraphs of "Publication" both contain effectively the same content ("attention to science separates this from books that are simply manifestos") - consider reworking these?
"an indispensable pamphlet for those comrads who love self-instruction" - typo or [sic] on "comrads"? "The printing contains a prominent typographical error in which an "i", displayed as "1"," - this sentence explains the printing error but not why the printing error would cause problems in this formula. It's been a while since high school chem, but I like to think "i" and "1" are different enough in meaning that I would notice the typo. There must be something I'm missing...? (Also: "prominent" as in highly visible? or should this be a word that more clearly means "important"?) "failed bombing of New York City's St. Patrick's Cathedral" - is there a reason not to say "attempted bombing" that I'm missing...? "The police insinuated possession of the handbook as evidence of the defendants' technical expertise and bad intentions, and La Salute è in voi was the most sensational of the prosecution's seditious books used to show the anarchists' intents." - I would CE this as "possession was evidence", but I think that wouldn't be quite right for two reasons: 1) the quote in the box on the right suggests this was more directly worded than "insinuated"; and 2) the second half of the sentence would better follow a first half that says something like "The police used the anarchists' possession of xyz [manuals/literature/whatever is most correct here] as evidence [...], and..." "they ended their message to supporters with "La Salute è in voi"" - can you clarify what this message was? a statement in court? said to a sympathetic reporter? something else? And, if it's reasonable to add, a half-sentence or so summarizing the message as a whole might be useful here. "detectives and historians have thought of the handbook as evidence of Galleanist conspiracy" - this clause is gluing together what looks like two separate sentences. Right now (at least to me) it appears to imply that S&V carried out the Wall St Bombing. I've done some easier/simpler fixes; feel free to change any of them as you like. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Also, I gather that Cronaca Sovversiva is Italian-language, but based in the USA. But perhaps I'm wrong? Can this be clarified?
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
That's all for now. I'll be able to have a look at these books next week. -- asilvering ( talk) 14:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, @ Asilvering! I believe I've addressed the above, when you have a chance to take a look.
czar 03:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Ultimately, the idea that laborers without expertise in explosives could successfully create them from simple directions was impractical.that comes up in the lead and the main text struck me as odd the way it's worded here, but in Larabee's book it's even stranger. She says the book was "highly optimistic in its belief that untrained novices" could set people up the bomb, etc. But this is contrary to her own argument (as laid out in the intro to her book), which is broadly about how bomb-making books are not instruction manuals (at least, not exclusively) but rather a form of subversive cultural/literary expression. Your call on how or whether to address this - she does say so, so I suppose it's fair-game-for-wikipedia, but I'd just yank it. I do think it's important to leave in this sentence, though:
Ann Larabee has written that the idea that untrained laborers could create bombs at home was and remains impractical, no more than an intellectual exercise.That's a truthful statement and doesn't assume anything about anyone's motivations.
While the handbook's authors believed that amateurs would be able to build explosives by following simple directionsshould be worded to be about the handbook, not the authors, since we don't even know who the authors really are, let alone their beliefs. "While the handbook assures readers that..." or something.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Asilvering ( talk · contribs) 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The first two paragraphs of "Publication" both contain effectively the same content ("attention to science separates this from books that are simply manifestos") - consider reworking these?
"an indispensable pamphlet for those comrads who love self-instruction" - typo or [sic] on "comrads"? "The printing contains a prominent typographical error in which an "i", displayed as "1"," - this sentence explains the printing error but not why the printing error would cause problems in this formula. It's been a while since high school chem, but I like to think "i" and "1" are different enough in meaning that I would notice the typo. There must be something I'm missing...? (Also: "prominent" as in highly visible? or should this be a word that more clearly means "important"?) "failed bombing of New York City's St. Patrick's Cathedral" - is there a reason not to say "attempted bombing" that I'm missing...? "The police insinuated possession of the handbook as evidence of the defendants' technical expertise and bad intentions, and La Salute è in voi was the most sensational of the prosecution's seditious books used to show the anarchists' intents." - I would CE this as "possession was evidence", but I think that wouldn't be quite right for two reasons: 1) the quote in the box on the right suggests this was more directly worded than "insinuated"; and 2) the second half of the sentence would better follow a first half that says something like "The police used the anarchists' possession of xyz [manuals/literature/whatever is most correct here] as evidence [...], and..." "they ended their message to supporters with "La Salute è in voi"" - can you clarify what this message was? a statement in court? said to a sympathetic reporter? something else? And, if it's reasonable to add, a half-sentence or so summarizing the message as a whole might be useful here. "detectives and historians have thought of the handbook as evidence of Galleanist conspiracy" - this clause is gluing together what looks like two separate sentences. Right now (at least to me) it appears to imply that S&V carried out the Wall St Bombing. I've done some easier/simpler fixes; feel free to change any of them as you like. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Also, I gather that Cronaca Sovversiva is Italian-language, but based in the USA. But perhaps I'm wrong? Can this be clarified?
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
That's all for now. I'll be able to have a look at these books next week. -- asilvering ( talk) 14:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, @ Asilvering! I believe I've addressed the above, when you have a chance to take a look.
czar 03:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Ultimately, the idea that laborers without expertise in explosives could successfully create them from simple directions was impractical.that comes up in the lead and the main text struck me as odd the way it's worded here, but in Larabee's book it's even stranger. She says the book was "highly optimistic in its belief that untrained novices" could set people up the bomb, etc. But this is contrary to her own argument (as laid out in the intro to her book), which is broadly about how bomb-making books are not instruction manuals (at least, not exclusively) but rather a form of subversive cultural/literary expression. Your call on how or whether to address this - she does say so, so I suppose it's fair-game-for-wikipedia, but I'd just yank it. I do think it's important to leave in this sentence, though:
Ann Larabee has written that the idea that untrained laborers could create bombs at home was and remains impractical, no more than an intellectual exercise.That's a truthful statement and doesn't assume anything about anyone's motivations.
While the handbook's authors believed that amateurs would be able to build explosives by following simple directionsshould be worded to be about the handbook, not the authors, since we don't even know who the authors really are, let alone their beliefs. "While the handbook assures readers that..." or something.