Talk:Anarchism without adjectives

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anarchism without adjectives/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 21:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one! LEvalyn was looking to help out doing a source review for a GAN, so I'll let them take that while I focus on the prose and such. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lede is good, though perhaps just a little bit too short.
• Well first off I see a bunch of adjectives throughout the article
• It might be worth giving a little more context for the emergence of anarchist communism in 1876 and what that entailed.
• Rest of background section solid.
• Development section is good. Maybe "formulation" might be a better term? Development to me seems to describe its early progress, rather than how it was proposed as an idea - but feel free to disagree on that front.
• You sometimes call him "Tarrida del Mármol", while otherwise calling him simply "Tarrida". I think it might be less confusing to spell it out fully on first mention and then just stick with Tarrida.
• Not a requirement, but it'd be nice for the images to have alt-text for accessibility.
• File:Malatesta (1).png, File:Fernando Tarrida del Mármol.jpg, and File:Ricardo Mella.jpg need PD-US tags.

That's my bit. Very solid and informative prose! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Thanks for reviewing this! I've added more context about anarchist communism and collectivist anarchism, changed the section heading to "Formulation", used "Tarrida" consistently after first use, added alt text and sorted out the public domain tags. I'm not sure how much more I can expand on the lead, but if you think there's anything I've left out, let me know and I can add it in. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grnrchst This looks good to me, and appears good to go due to the successful source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like to use a random number generator to pick 10 sources or 10% (whichever is greater) to check. For this article, I'll look at sources 4, 9, 14, 15, 17, 22, 25, 38, 48, and 54, as they are numbered in this diff. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Esenwein 1989, p. 134. Everything else attributed to this source verifies without close paraphrasing, but "plain and simple anarchism" is not mentioned here. I don't see it anywhere in the Esenwein source. Especially since the term appears in quotation marks, I'd say it should either be removed or cited to a source that does contain that phrase. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may have been an original translation on my part. "A secas" can be translated as "plain and simple", hence "plain and simple anarchism" for "anarquismo a secas". But as Esenwein translates it to "indifferent anarchism", I've stuck to that and provided the Spanish original. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense! You may also have been influenced by the fact that Maryson talks about "pure and simple" anarchism, and that phrase is in the subtitle of the Esenwein article. But the revision looks good, thanks! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. Avrich 1978, pp. 149–150; Esenwein 1989, pp. 136–137. These both look good. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14. Esenwein 1989, pp. 138–139. This checks out. To my eye all the article info is just on p 139 so the cite could be simplified, but again that's not really important to the source review. What matters is that it's continuing to effectively verify without copyright infringement! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15. Esenwein 1989, p. 139. This may be a quibble, but I feel like the quotation "outlived its usefulness" implies that Tarrida said that phrase, but really that's a quote from the source. I'd advise paraphrasing further, maybe something like "he accepted the disslution of the FTRE when it grew too bureaucratic to effectively achieve its original aims". Otherwise this all checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten. Thanks for the suggestion! --Grnrchst (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17. Esenwein 1989, pp. 146–147. Looks good. Again I think you could just cite this to p. 146 but that's not really important. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22. Esenwein 1989, pp. 147–148. Looks good. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

25. Avrich 1978, p. 150; Esenwein 1989, pp. 153–154. Esenwein 153 is sufficient to verify this. Avrich 150 also checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

38. Avrich 1978, p. 152. Checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48. Avrich 1978, p. 155. Looks good. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

54. Williams 2009, pp. 200–201, 207. Checks out, and what an interesting bit of research in this article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, overall, this looks wonderful! The only recurring "problem" I noticed was a tendency to cite slightly more material than is strictly needed for the sentence in question. Since you have so helpfully given individual pages, it is still quite simple for readers to find and verify info, so this "problem" hardly seems worth the effort of correcting. It does not form part of the GA criteria, and doesn't generally raise red flags about the article overall. So, Grnrchst, I'd ask that you just take a look at #4 and #15, and then you're all set! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: Thanks for the spotchecks! I've addressed 4 and 15. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So quick!! For the revision on 15, I've boldly added the phrase "for example" to help maintain the connection between this example and the overall idea, but assuming you're OK with that, everything is all done source-wise! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]