Talk:Wilhelm Reich/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I will be glad to take on this review. I should be able to provide at least some initial feedback by the weekend. Hopefully I can get the process started quickly, as I see that the article has been nominated for some time already. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Eric, that's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your hard work on this article. Reich is a controversial figure, and that is reflected in the talk page comments over several years, but all content disputes seem to be dormant if not resolved. Despite this being a long article, I see very few items that need to be addressed.

Lead

• May want to link University of Vienna and neuropsychiatry (second paragraph)

• psychoanalytic outpatients' clinic - outpatient (no apostrophe or s) is a bit more common, may be more straightforward

• What is the source for the six tons in the portion about book burning?

First two fixed, and source added for the six tons. [1]

Early life

• I would avoid saying "by all accounts" unless specifically attributed to a source; might use an example of a source that said he was cold and jealous.

• I've left this because all the sources I've seen mention it; attributing it to just one would make it sound as though it was just one opinion. And as I suppose all the sources about this ultimately rely on Reich anyway, there probably isn't another opinion out there.

1919-1930

• Rework the sentence beginning "He arrived in the city with nothing" - might just take out the "where in addition..." portion. I generally prefer shorter sentences, but that's just a personal preference. In this case though, the sentence isn't quite clear.

• Is there doubt about whether he considered shooting himself? I'm not sure what to make of the "apparently." Best to clarify further.

• I think we generally prefer hyphens or other punctuation in lieu of slashes, as in reductionist/mechanistic. Some other sources use hyphens or commas between these two words.

• Fixed the first, removed the second, left the third. It's reductionist, i.e. mechanistic, so a slash is more appropriate than a hyphen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

1930-1934

• In the "Verlag..." section, the government "failed to renew" his visa - denied the renewal of?

• I may be missing it, but who is Paul Federn?

Fixed the visa issue. Paul Federn is described on first reference: "The appointment was made over the objection of Paul Federn (1871–1950), who had been Reich's second analyst in 1922 and who, according to Sharaf, regarded Reich as a psychopath."

1934-1939

• First sentence under Personal life is a bit awkward. Better might be "According to Sharaf, Reich's personal life was the happiest between 1934 and 1937."

• Fixed.

1947-1957

• Under Imprisonment, flying saucer guy and sex box man should probably be in quotes as they aren't common phrases.

• Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of this stuff is pretty superficial, so it should be straightforward to address. I may make some additional minor copyedits. I look forward to promoting this. Thank you for some hard work on a thorough and extensively sourced article. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 15:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric, I'll go through the article and smooth out the issues you raised. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Any remaining issues fall outside the scope of GA.

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.	Minor copyedits made by nominator and reviewer.
	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.	Extensively referenced.
	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).	Spot checks of text show consistency with cited references.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Appears comprehensive without trivial details.
	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.

Thank you for dedicated work on this article over several years. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 22:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and promotion, Eric. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)