Talk:First World/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This looks like a good article, but I'm not going so far as to suggest that it is a Good Article, yet, for the two reasons given below.

Firstly, the bolding of every occurence of First World is extremely annoying, as is the wikilinking of every occurency of Third World, NATO, United Kingdom, etc, etc, etc. The policy for linking is given in Wikipedia:Linking. What you have here is excessive overlinking; and it is extremely annoying. None of the terms Third World, NATO, United Kingdom, etc, etc, need to be linked more than once, usually at the first occurence. Secondly, I will be assessing this article against WP:WIAGA, so the excessive bolding and overlinking could be regarded as non-compliant with WP:MoS.

I've not checked any of the references; and will be doing so later on. However, you appear to have a comprehensive, well-illustrated, well-referenced article. There are two {citation needed} tags that need to be addressed.

At this point I'm putting the review "On Hold". Once the debolding of First World, other than the first occurence in the WP:Lead, and the excess over linking have been removed I will continue with the review.

However, congratulations on the quality of the article. Its a good article (if not a Good Article). Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have taken off all the multiple links I found and all bolded First Worlds besides the first one. Rgg6 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through one more time and checked if there were any other multiple links, I also did link some things that were not linked but fall under the wiki guidelines. Maybe we could get a third pair of eyes just to go over it for sure. Kmm131 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had done that too, I just hadn't posted it on the talk page :-) Jsf26 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll now go through the article section by section in more depth, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Here, I will only be concentrating on "problems", which all appear to be fairly minor; all the good points will, however, be covered at the end of the reivew. Pyrotec (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - The first sentence seems to hang in mid air, i.e "After World War II the world split into two large geopolitical blocs". It needs to be finished using "labels" of your choice, e.g. ....two large geopolitical blocs, e.g. eastern bloc and west bloc (communisium / captialism).[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - You mention the Cold War and then talk about the "term First World was highly used" and in the next sentence say that it is dated. Could you provide a date (probably a decade, e.g. 1950s, 1990s?) when the label First World came into use.[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - Ref 1 is a broken web link. It is usual to add the date that the web link was first accessed. A template can be used, see Template:Cite web.[reply]

Its now ref 2. Pyrotec (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Jsf26 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Development Index -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - A good section: ref 3 needs an access date (use the template cite web); and whilst the image is good, you need to explain the colour scheme - its already in the original file.[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - Same for Ref 8.[reply]

Three World model -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - Ref 9 is a book, a page number, or page numbers, should be provided.[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC) - Ref 13 needs an accessdate.[reply]

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed Ref 9, but under Ref 13, there is a "retrieved date" written there...was it something else that was wrong with Ref 13? Rgg6 (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, Ragini, I think I had fixed Ref 13 before you looked over it. Jsf26 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships with the other worlds -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - Refs 19 & 20 are books, a page number, or page numbers, should be provided.[reply]

I fixed Ref 19, Ref 20 has page numbers on it Rgg6 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 20 (Powaski, Ronald (1998)) is fixed, but not 19 (Bonds, John (2002)). Pyrotec (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 19 now has page number Rgg6 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - Ref 31 is a valid web link, but the citation lacks a date of publication and a date of accession.[reply]

I fixed that Jsf26 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 33 is a valid web link, but the citation lacks a date of accession.~~ Pyrotec (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - Ref 40 is not correctly specified. Now ref 38. Pyrotec (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Jsf26 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs ~~41 to 51~~ are not correctly specified. Now 39 to 50. Pyrotec (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (I think) Jsf26 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 45, 46, 48 & 50 are the same web link, but as it is a 44-page pdf file, so I'll be needing page numbers.

Ref 42 is now properly formatted but still needs a page number. However, it should make fixing all of the other citations from the same source (but presumably different pages) easier. Jsf26 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (I think) Jsf26 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - There were a whole series of GATT agrements, this article is written as if there were only one.[reply]

Fixed, "...series of ..." Rgg6 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - Ref 58 is not fully cited (try clicking on the show full citation link at the top of the Jstor page).[reply]

Fixed (Now Ref 55) Jsf26 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead -

This is intended to do two things: act as an introduction to the article (and it does not reasonably well); it should also summarise the main points in the article, and it does not do that very well. I would sugggest that the lead needs to be about twice its current length. Look at the Contents, for instance, see what is listed there and consider whether there is summary of it in the lead.

Lead has been augmented as per your suggestions. Please let us know if there is more to be done with it. Rgg6 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I've done my review of the article. There are corrective actions to be done, so I'm putting the review On Hold. You have a week or so to fix them, if you need more time you can ask. I have this page on my watch list, so I will be keeping an eye on progress. Pyrotec (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@All: I cleaned up and reformatted some citations. However, not all of the later ones use a template - is it our goal for all of them to do so? I also attempted to follow Sanguis Sanies's suggestions, but then I realized our formatting would make it extremely difficult. Does anyone have an opinion and what we should do about that? Jsf26 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify what is required. I'm asking that the necessary information be provided in the references; and for web links that includes a date of access. That can be done without the use of a {citation} template merely by adding the information in the correct sequence. So in short, it is your choice whether you use the template, or not. Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@All - I have fixed things in my section or the things I worked on. I put comments under the bullet if I addressed it. Rgg6 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrotec - I see a green check mark - is that something we need to do, or is that something you do once you are satisfied with the correction? Also, for the lead, do you think it may be a good idea to have each person summarize their section in 1-3 sentences and then we merge them properly as for the summary? I am also confused about the "introduction." The whole first part of the article is essentially the introduction....? Rgg6 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is easier if I do the green ticks, as once I am happy this article gets GA-status. However, I'm quite happy for anyone to add a comment underneath my comments, for example:

* Ref 45, 46, 48 & 50 are the same web link, but as it is a 44-page pdf file, so I'll be needing page numbers.
Done (or why is this needed). Rgg69999 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There were a whole series of GATT agrements, this article is written as if there were only one.

Fixed, "...series of ..." Rgg6 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref 58 is not fully cited (try clicking on the show full citation link at the top of the Jstor page).

The whole of the text above the Contents box is known as the WP:Lead, hence my comment - "this is intended to do two things: act as an introduction to the article (and it does not reasonably well); it should also summarise the main points in the article, and it does not do that very well. I would sugggest that the lead needs to be about twice its current length. Look at the Contents, for instance, see what is listed there and consider whether there is summary of it in the lead".

I would suggest that the "introduction" part of the Lead is: "The concept of the First World first originated during the Cold War, where it was used to describe countries that were aligned with the United States. These countries were democratic and capitalistic. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term First World took on a new meaning that was more applicable to the times. Since its original definition, the term First World has come to be largely synonymous with developed and/or highly developed countries (depending on which definition is being used)"; and the rest is summary. The divide in the Lead between Introduction and Summary is not all that important - I just consider that more "summary" is needed.

Does that clarify what I'm asking for, and what you are free to choose to do?

Yes, I understand the expectations of the Lead now. Thanks, Rgg6 (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy for draft versions to go either here or on the talk page, what ever is needed for your assignment. All I need to know is the finish version. Pyrotec (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was reviewing, mostly, your article as it existed on 18 November 2009: this version [1]. Some of the recent edits have changed the reference numbers. Pyrotec (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well-referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well-referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:
Well-illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well-illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Well done. You now have GA-status. Congratulations on this team effort. Pyrotec (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]