Talk:Ayn Rand/GA1

GA Review

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

Hm. It's very long. Half way thru, I wanted some sort of focus. More about her philosophy, less about her personal life. There is unnecessary detail in the biography. For example: "Among her professors was the philosopher N.O. Lossky.[9] " Why mention this, if it is never to be mentioned again? Too much trivia about her personal life.

Overall, a good article. Very thorough (too thorough). The only weakness, going by the "Good article criteria" checklist, is being overly detailed. Noloop (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Per a suggestion at the GAN talk page, I'm placing this note to say that the remarks above were a "false start" for a review that will not be completed (see comments here). Anyone who wants to provide a full review is welcome to do so. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial Review

First impression is the article is a great achievement, representing far more energy and scholarship than is generally required for GA. Considering her cultural impact I dont think you go into unnecessary detail. If anything, you could have fleshed out a few of the key personal to help the reader develop a feel for her character. I've only been able to verify a small proportion of the references, but all the ones I have check out fine. The other requirements seem to have been easily met, so Im very likely to pass this article. Im going to sleep on it though, as I dont want to rush my suggestions for how the article could be further improved. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Feyd! There is no rush whatsoever where this article is concerned, so please do take as much time as you feel is required. Cheers,  Skomorokh  18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Full Review

Some minor stability issues seem to have developed, but they werent there when i started the review, and the overall quality makes it easier to overlook a borderline issue. Im passing the article.

The article doesnt seem too far from FA standard. While the prose isnt sparkling, a good clear and consistent tone is used throughout. Quite remarkable considering she's such a polarising figure and the number of editors working on it.

Im not a FA writer, so this might not be the best advice in the world. But here's my suggestions for improvements. Due to her cultural impact and the recent revival of interest, you could probably expand the article a little.

I dont think you need to say much more about her philosophy as thats covered in the main article, and judging by the sort folk ive seen with her books many of her readers might not be too interested in technical points.

The article seems to do a great job of painting the key incidents of her life in broad strokes, but there's rarely enough detail to get a feel for what sort of person she was.

Welcome exceptions are the descriptions of why she ended her relationship with the Brandens, her choice of beneficiary for her will, the mention that she enjoyed fielding hostile questions. While we get a sense of why her early experiences caused her to hate collectivism, it would be good to have a specific incident from her formative years fleshed out.

Id like to see some of her opinions on specific political issues, like conscription or abortion. They're talked about in the main philosophy article, but readers might miss that.

Its easy to see from the article why many find what she stands for repellent, but there's only glimpses of the reasons she commanded so much devotion from her admirers. If anything I find the article to have a POV bias against the subject. Id guess you have her standing in accademia summned up quite nicely. But there almost nothing about her positive qualities as a person. One can infer she was exceptionally courageous to boldly speak out on issues that guarantee to alienate folk on all sides of the political spectrum. But it would be nice to have this and any other positive qualities explicitly acknowledged.

On her writings, we have about 3 positives who opine about the beauty , fruitfullness and intelligence of her writing but they're almost lost in barrage of negatives "hyperbolic and emotional" - "shrillness without reprieve" - "angry tirade" - "incessant bombast and continuous venting of Randian rage" etc, etc. Its as if the article over emphasises the unstated point that like many who venerate reason Rand has little emotional control. I dont really see the need for this, on the other hand it might be good to have a little more exposition about her views on selfishness. There's a way you could do this while sexing up the article's human interest appeal at the same time. Nietchze wrote that "The degree and kind of a mans sexuality reach up into the topmost summit of his spirit." It says on the GoodKind link that his work contains strong sado-masochistic overtones. Isnt that true even more so for Rand? A well placed mention of this might imply that folk who consider selfishness a positive quality tend to have natures well outside the norm. Perhaps even a good secondary source has said this. On the other hand, I seem to remember she made the relatively moderate point that most women prefer men to mostly take charge in bed, arguably one of her few contributions to the great discussion thats of enduring value (as its still an unpopular truth for the chattering classes.) If you do include further criticism, then IMO you should add an even greater amount of praise to achieve NPOV. I know it not usual, but with highly polarising figures like Rand i think there's a case for separating out reception into positive and negative sections, so the minority camp doesnt get swamped.

If any suitable colour pics can be used they might help brighten the tone of the article. It might be good to have a third paragraph in the lede, some readers likely only this section so it could cover a little more ground.

Thanks for the opportunity to review such a stimulating article!

PS - due to the massive back log at GA, please can any of you who have time review some of the candidates there.

PPS - just to confirm I've still only verified a percentage of the sources. Im taking it on trust that the remainder will check out fine. "The righteous will live by faith" :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)