GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Goldsztajn ( talk · contribs) 07:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Parking this here for the review. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:57, 7 May 2020 (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. | Some cases where more summaries would be helpful (see below) |
![]() |
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. | This is basically a pass at this level, but IMO it is right on the borderline. I see the following problems:
|
![]() |
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. | Earwig shows an unlikely result, but making comparisons here and here, there are two examples of extremely close paraphrasing. I checked ten other references and these seem fine, but would suggest a detailed check before any resubmission. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Some issues that are left out (or which I missed): defence of the practice (eg Towarnicky (2015)), those who argue the problem cannot be solved due to political interia ( Fuller and Thomas (2017)), inversion leads to declines in employment in the US ( Rao 2015), experience from outside UK/USA ( Col, Liao and Zeume (2016) present evidence which includes Australia, France, Germany and others). Finally I think the nature of how this is a deeply political issue could be more explicitly discussed - the ways in which the Obama administration watered down its own regulations or that the TCJA has loop holes are just two examples of many that illustrate the nature of the problem. |
![]() |
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. | Comments on images:
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | This is an important article and certainly one which has significant contemporary interest, notability and relevance. It is definitely a worthwhile effort in bringing this to good article status. There is also no lack of information contained within the article and the work bringing it to this level should be acknowledged. Unfortunately, there are significant issues related to GA criteria and in the present form there is too much work for it to be placed on hold – I would recommend a significant round of editing and resubmission. The key areas which need focus are summary of issues, clarity over what is specifically notable, improvement in the use of graphics as related to text, improved structure and cleaning up sourcing. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 18:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC) |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Goldsztajn ( talk · contribs) 07:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Parking this here for the review. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:57, 7 May 2020 (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. | Some cases where more summaries would be helpful (see below) |
![]() |
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. | This is basically a pass at this level, but IMO it is right on the borderline. I see the following problems:
|
![]() |
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. | Earwig shows an unlikely result, but making comparisons here and here, there are two examples of extremely close paraphrasing. I checked ten other references and these seem fine, but would suggest a detailed check before any resubmission. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Some issues that are left out (or which I missed): defence of the practice (eg Towarnicky (2015)), those who argue the problem cannot be solved due to political interia ( Fuller and Thomas (2017)), inversion leads to declines in employment in the US ( Rao 2015), experience from outside UK/USA ( Col, Liao and Zeume (2016) present evidence which includes Australia, France, Germany and others). Finally I think the nature of how this is a deeply political issue could be more explicitly discussed - the ways in which the Obama administration watered down its own regulations or that the TCJA has loop holes are just two examples of many that illustrate the nature of the problem. |
![]() |
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. | Comments on images:
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | This is an important article and certainly one which has significant contemporary interest, notability and relevance. It is definitely a worthwhile effort in bringing this to good article status. There is also no lack of information contained within the article and the work bringing it to this level should be acknowledged. Unfortunately, there are significant issues related to GA criteria and in the present form there is too much work for it to be placed on hold – I would recommend a significant round of editing and resubmission. The key areas which need focus are summary of issues, clarity over what is specifically notable, improvement in the use of graphics as related to text, improved structure and cleaning up sourcing. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 18:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC) |