Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Why Marx Was Right/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 December 2021 [1].

Why Marx Was Right edit

Nominator(s): — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quite long-term project of mine (including a long off-wiki writing process), Why Marx Was Right is my third article nominated for FA status. I've written lots of book articles before, but neglected to take many through feature-quality processes. A lot of research went into this article, perhaps the most of any of the 125 or so articles I've created. I look forward to all constructive criticism. — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't duplicate captions in alt text
  • File:JStalin_Secretary_general_CCCP_1942_flipped.jpg: why specifically is this believed to be PD in Russia?
  • File:Karl_Marx_001_(cropped_2).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: done the first. For the second, I believe the Library of Congress record shows it was first published at least before 1944, when it was transferred to the LoC, and there's been no author identified in 70 years (plus 7 more). Is that okay, or would File:Cropped Stalin 1943.jpg be a more clear-cut PD usage?
      And on the last point, it was created by John Jabez Edwin Mayall and published in the International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam) in 1875. Mayall died in 1901. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the second, I don't see that LOC specifies it was published before being transferred? On the third, suggest adding that to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've switched out the second image for File:Cropped Stalin 1943.jpg, as I can't find any more information about the image we were using. I've updated the image description as requested for the other image. Thanks very much for your feedback, Nikkimaria. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from czar edit

Extended content

General

  • Had more to say than I anticipated. :) It was an interesting read—thanks for the heads up!
  • Most of my comments below are structural. Anything phrased as a question is rhetorical—no need to answer them; feel free to address or ignore. If I have time later, will return for more.
  • Listing page numbers and database identifiers would make source verification so much easier for readers (or a FAC source reviewer)
    • Page numbers should now be added. Not sure what exactly you mean by database identifiers—experienced Wikipedians should be able to see most sources within ProQuest on TWL but readers (and editors) might be using JSTOR or their university's search system, so I'm not sure how universal an identifier would be (or how to get a DOI out of ProQuest). — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's possible to add database links like so (for ProQuest), which makes source lookup easier down the line. I personally add JSTOR, DOI, and PQ or EBSCOhost where relevant, so readers have options, but that's very much optional. czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's now a ProQuest (or other database identifier) for each reference that does not have a direct URL link. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • Are all 10 objections needed in the lede? It's somewhat excessive to me as a general reader when a few examples would suffice. The list in the synopsis section would make sense, though.
    • Now just summarising some, and each objection is listed with a bit more detail in the new synopsis. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know the reception was "mostly negative" without an aggregate reviewer saying so? Believe that's original research
  • General readers don't need exact dates in the lede since they have it in the infobox and, if necessary, in the relevant section. They just need to know the gist of when the book was released.
    • Now just gives the years 2011 and 2018. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "criticised by others as humourless, filled with poor analogies or lacking strong arguments" introduce a parallelism for better reading: "as lacking humour, strong arguments, and good analogies"
  • "the prose style", "the commentary on historical materialism" sound detached; it's either "its prose style" (referring to the book) or "Eagleton's prose style" (referring to the author's role in writing the book)
  • "historical moment" doesn't need ersatz quotes (or, then, a ref)
  • were no reviewers strong enough to warrant mention in the lede? If not (and that's fine), consider how the reception section could mirror the lede; i.e., where is the group citation for how the prose style can be summarised as witty, entertaining, and easy to read? If that's a point important enough for the lede, I would want to read a part of the Reception that explains why, perhaps starting with that topic sentence and followed by the supporting evidence
    • I'm not sure any reviewer is worth quoting specifically in the lead, but the paragraph is intended to be a clear paragraph-by-paragraph summary of Reception, which in many cases did repeat topic sentences. Take another look at the new version and if you still think it's not clear where the content is verified (with citations) then I'd appreciate more detail. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything worth adding about Eagleton's approach or background with Marx in the lede? Like what about his prior experience with the subject or reputation in this aspect
    • None of the sources really brought in past works of his; the only real commentary on his approach is that he's an Irish Catholic, given a paragraph in "Background" and Gray (2011) believes Eagleton understates Marx's objection to religion based on his Catholicism, as mentioned in "Reception", but that's not lead-worthy. I could maybe add "Eagleton's approach to Marxism was informed by his Catholicism", or equally leave it out? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah that sounds more like it fits in Reception than as Background. To the question, he's writing in defense of Marxism: Is he a Marxist and if so, is there anything published on his background as a Marxist? czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, I've added a couple of sources that give more background context on Eagleton's involvement with Marxism and leftism (whether he calls himself one or not, his writing is heavily influenced by Marxism). — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background/Editions

  • There are parts of this section that would fit better in a Publication section (history of publication, development of the work, relationship with publisher, editions, release) if there's enough for a dedicated section (check for interviews); Background should be the truly Background topics needed for a general reader, e.g., what does the reader need to know about Marx to make the synopsis intelligible for a general audience?
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean here. None of the section is about background Marxist theory—as the book is for laypeople, the synopsis should be intelligible to the general audience (at least on the latest rewrite, or with further refinement). Are you suggesting, then, a re-title to "Publication" (as I've now done), or is something else needed? (As for interviews, the couple that exist are included already.) — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's common in articles about books to start with a Background or Historical context section that either explains the terms or the circumstances behind the book's publication. To my eyes, the Background here is Eagleton's background with the subject (prior writings, etc.) and the summary of Marxism that a general reader would need to be literate. Topics like Eagleton's motivation, his personal background, and editions of the book all fall within Publication history or Development, which is usually a later section. I'm not sure whether the current version necessarily must be changed, but the above is how I'd organize it to give the reader what they're expecting when they need it most. czar 07:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it now organised as you describe above? — Bilorv (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: editions, it would be sufficient to put the reprint information in prose as four identical citations are redundant
    • Is the current version what you had in mind? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That works. I'd personally condense down to just the year and no ISBN for subsequent releases, unless the specific date and edition is particularly noteworthy (reprints and paperback editions generally aren't). czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, I've condensed to years and removed the other ISBNs except for the 2018 second edition, which had a new preface at least. (Thinking about it again, is "reprint" technically wrong if there was a new preface? That's the only change.) — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Reprint" sounds right czar 07:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few parts here that would be better served by saying what the source means instead of their flourish: What is "something of a revelation"? (To what? About what? In what way?) What is "newly perceptible as as a system"? (More apparent to non-theorists? More present in everyday life and rhetoric?)
    • Done this for those two and a couple more. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Room for concision: "The New Republic's John Gray argued that before the economic crisis, Marxism had been at its most "unfashionable", due to the failures of the Soviet Union and modern China.[8] However, the crisis caused a resurgence in Marxist thought.[8][9] " >> "While Marxism had been "unfashionable" due to ..., the financial crisis caused a resurgence in Marxist thought." (this should be a fact, not an attributed opinion, if the source is reliable)
  • "its fallout" whose? Or in the spirit of concision, "resurgence in Marxist thought, including the books ..." But I don't think you need to list five books to make your point—picking the best one or two would be sufficient. The rest can go to a footnote if important.
  • "obselete" typo
  • The most interesting parts of this section are the background on the historical moment. For what it's worth, I don't think the background on Eagleton's motivation, professorial history, or favorite chapter was particularly important background, though perhaps relevant in a Publication section.
    • As above, they're all in "Publication" now. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

  • This section isn't very accessible to a general audience—it's trying to convey a lot of information in the space of a plot summary when it would be better served by taking more time to explain each "objection" and the substance of Eagleton's rebuttal. For this reason, it would be much more helpful for this section to have citations such that you could introduce outside context where needed for each description without needing to work around rules for foregoing summary citations. There are plenty of reviews so I would imagine there is plenty of content here.
    • I guess I was worried that more words would make the section too long. For instance, I could do a paragraph on each chapter, but is that not too much detail? I tried to make the synopsis just about self-contained, and I can probably give quite a lot more context with another 100–200 words, but where do you think the limit is? Or are you talking about a more fundamental restructuring? — Bilorv (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • re: potentially too much detail, it might be—I'm not sure. I can defer to other reviewers. To my ears, ten shorter paragraphs sounds appropriate since the point of the article is to explain the role and importance of a book, which involves understanding its argument. czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, take a look at the new section, which is still just a synopsis of the book, but contains more explanation of terms (based on Eagleton's definitions in the book) and expansion on Eagleton's arguments. Let me know if this is still not accessible. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's better but it's still hard to follow. For each section I just want to know, "To the claim that Marxism results in mass murder and political repression, Eagleton [counterargument]." As currently written, it's hard to piece together what exactly his counterargument is in response to the "objection". Insofar as it's possible to outline the objection and the thrust of the counterargument in the same topic sentence, that would make for much easier reading, and perhaps wouldn't need so much text to back it up. Are all the term explanations necessary? I'm mainly trying to understand his argument, not learn the terms. If the terms are important for understanding Marxism than in context of the synopsis, another option is to have a paragraph or two explaining the basic language of Marxism in the Background section. czar 17:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added a background section for the main exposition of Marxist terminology, and made some rewrites to focus on how Eagleton's commentary is a counterargument to the initial objection. The terms are important to be precise, and because the exposition of Marxist theory is a key focus of the book. With some chapters, several reviewers thought Eagleton's writing was unclear or not a counterargument at all; in this case, all I can do is convey what Eagleton wrote, rather than construct or infer a counterargument myself. However, let me know if any parts of the Synopsis are still unclear in conveying what Eagleton says. — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I.e., "against the irrelevance of Marxism to the 21st century" this is academic language—what does this mean to a general reader? Is it "argues against the objection that Marxism is outdated for 21st century purposes" (which would still need explanation)?
    • That was the meaning, but now there's more detail: "he sets out a brief argument that Marxism is irrelevant in the post-industrial, classness Western world". — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I can pull this thread a little more, still not sure what that means. How is Western society (socially) "classless"? Is class less important or deemphasized? It surely isn't eradicated or fully classless, no? Is the objection that "social class plays a lesser role in post-industrial societies, making Marxian class theory less applicable"? czar 17:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, that's a better way of putting it, which I've now employed. The argument goes: ... [Marxism] certainly has no bearing on the increasingly classless, socially mobile, postindustrial Western societies of the present ... — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • It's very hard to follow the cavalcade of reviewer names and frequent quotes. For instance, when "Barry and Rundle found it the weakest part of the book", should I be backtracking to figure out who Barry is and what qualifies his opinion? This is a common Reception section issue and I've found that the best solution is to not name individuals unless they are noteworthy critics (with their own WP articles) and instead refer to reviews by the outlet name, when it's necessary to even attribute the sentiment. The smoothest Reception sections group each thematic paragraph into a narrative. For example, it's much easier to understand that, "Multiple reviewers [or Publications X, Y, Z] criticized what they considered weak argumentation throughout the book. Supporting example 1 of assertion instead of argument. Supporting example 2 of glib approach. Supporting example 3 of general weakness. Dissenting example or caveat 4, e.g., who were generally convinced." But by setting up what the paragraph is about (argumentation more than rhetoric), it becomes much easier to follow what you want the reader to take away from the paragraph.
    • CRS is my Bible, but I have worked quite hard to try to theme the comments and draw a narrative from them. If you look at the wikitext, there's a hidden comment for each paragraph which roughly describes its topic, and the first sentence should be a topic sentence. I'll work on restyling the names (though I really dislike quotes with no prose attribution so I might shorten just to outlet), but can you give some more guidance on the rest? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was once given advice by a historian who made the point of how many pieces of evidence are needed to prove a point: Five? Ten? Two? Only as much as needs convincing. So when I hear that reviewers had varying opinions on whether the book met its objectives (which were what again?) as a general reader, I expect to see which reviewers (X, Y, Z publications) thought it did and which reviewers thought it didn't, followed by one or two compelling examples per side that give color or help elucidate the most convincing cases for and against Eagleton's writing. If Eagleton's "stated objectives" were to convince the reader that the ten objections are mistaken, then I'd want to read something like: X, Y, Z thought Eagleton was most compelling in arguing A because B. D and E were thoroughly convinced throughout, though E generally thought [contrary position]. Since this is also a highly partisan subject, it would be useful for me to know as a general reader if an author or source is writing from a pro- or anti-Marxist position. (I.e., not surprising that The American Conservative did not find the arguments compelling, but is there more to it than that?) But the main benefit of this approach is, instead of writing three different ways that three different reviewers thought the book met its aims, it's possible to combine them in a single sentence (see XYZ above). It's perhaps even more compelling to see one strong sentence reinforce a central narrative than three relatively weaker sentences about minor aspects of the paragraph's thesis. czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've given it a rewrite, with just publication names (except for a review published in two different newspapers and two different reviews in the same newspaper). Hopefully these names and links are enough for readers to identify clearly pro- and anti-Marxist positions, but I don't think I can be more explicit without engaging in original research. I've grouped things together more, reduced reliance on quotes and cut some things where they aren't going to fit into a flowing narrative (i.e. some of the points that were only raised by one reviewer). Take a look now and see if the section has moved in the right direction. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is so much easier to read now. Nice work! czar 17:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics were divided on whether the topics covered were well-chosen." Generally can avoid passive voice by putting the author or book in there: "Critics disagreed on Eagleton's selection of topics."

czar 20:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed comments, Czar. I've read them all and begun addressing some, but it may take me a few days to properly respond to them all. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: apologies for the delay, but I think I've responded to each of your points now. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: another Synopsis update, and I believe I've also addressed the tags you added to the Publication section. — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Left a bunch of in-line tags and changes with descriptive edit summaries czar 07:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "wouldn't this sentence be stronger if it showed the stat that refuted Eagleton?" – there is no such statistic. Eagleton gives the statistic (I believe without citation—I'm struggling to relocate the right page at the moment) and the reviewers simply assert the statistic is patently false without citation. Not sure what else there is to say here. As for the relevance of global poverty (purportedly) falling, this is posed by the reviewer as a direct contradiction to something Eagleton claims: Some of his own preconceptions, though, are on equally shaky ground. In particular, global poverty and global inequality have fallen rather than risen over recent decades. However, so far as I could see it does not contradict anything Eagleton claims. So I've taken that bit out now.
Re: "what happened in 2016, some kind of re-release?", I've no idea. It's not clear to me what caused the spike. — Bilorv (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a good read and the Reception section shines. I'd be curious to see what others think of the Synopsis, which I would normally hammer out so that each connection is crystal clear, but alas I haven't read the book and it's at least 80% there. If need be, I can return for a source review.
By the way/apropos of nothing, I came across What Marx Really Meant (G. D. H. Cole, 1934) today—it's similar to Eagleton's book except written four generations ago. Thought you might appreciate. czar 07:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your comments, Czar, they've really helped to improve the article. (That is a funny comparison—it's always interesting to hear what different eras's "modern" interpretation of historical writings was like.) — Bilorv (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Nick-D edit

  • The references to journal articles, the hard copy magazines and The Communist Manifesto need page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • These should now all be added, Nick-D, except for Brown (2011), Maclean's (2011a) and Maclean's (2011b), where ProQuest doesn't show any page numbers. Does it look right now? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. You need to provide page numbers for all the specific references to these works. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

I will wait until czar completes their review before I post my own. This is admittedly outside of my usual area of expertise, as I have not worked extensively on book articles and it has been a while since I learned about and discussed Marxism in college. I just have one quick question. Why is the second edition cover used rather than one from the first edition? From my experience, the featured articles on books go with the first edition covers. Aoba47 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the reason is that I find the first edition cover horrendously ugly (not unusual for an academic text). I am happy to change it if you feel that the first edition is inherently more encyclopedic. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. I was more so curious if there was a policy in place about this. If not, then the current choice should be fine. I would have honestly done the same. The second edition's cover seems more engaging to me, and I also have preferences over certain covers from certain editions. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a nitpick, but for this part, Written for laypeople, Eagleton outlines ten objections to Marxism that the average person may, could "the average person" be replaced with "they" as it feels somewhat repetitive since "laypeople" was already established earlier in the same sentence?
  • Soviet Union is linked twice in the lead.
    • Unlinked on second occurrence — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For File:Culture Wars - Kulturkriege. Luxemburg Lecture mit Terry Eagleton (8720387921).jpg, I would include when the photo was taken in the caption to provide more context for readers. This information is likely unnecessary for the more historical photos, but it would be nice to know if the Eagleton photo was taken around the book's release or at another time.
  • I am not sure "The author" descriptor is necessary for this part, The author Terry Eagleton is an academic. If you would like to keep this, I would remove the determiner to just say "Author" as it reads a little odd to have this part before the actual book is introduced in the article itself.
  • I would add a link for leftism in this part, He turned to leftism.
  • I have a clarification question about the "he's dead, actually" part. I get that it is joke, but has Eagleton ever seriously answered this question?
    • No, I don't think so. I couldn't find any other comments he made about the title or any others he considered (maybe more apt given the book's structure of responding to misconceptions would have been Why Marx Wasn't Wrong). — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Karl Marx wikilink should be moved up to the "Publication" section where he is referenced (only by his last name) for the first time.
    • Yep, broken the quote into two to give Marx's full name and link there. — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Reception" section, you discuss the book's sales in Canada. Is there a reason why its sales in other countries are not mentioned? It just seems a little odd to only mention Canada here, when the books was written by a British academic and published by an American university.
    • Yeah, it is a strange one, but I couldn't find any sales details in any other countries, and I believe it didn't make any Bestseller lists in the U.K. or U.S. I don't particularly know why it seemed to do so well in Canada. — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is interesting. Maybe something in this book just resonated more with a Canadian audience or it could have been just better marketed there or something alone those lines. Thank you for answering this question. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my comments are helpful. Again, this is well outside of my comfort zone, but I wanted to do my best to help. I trust that czar and others would be able to provide a more complete and thoughtful review than myself. With that being said, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once my comments have been addressed. Great work with the article and I hope you had a wonderful end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, they are very useful. :) — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything! I am glad that I could help. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time and/or interest. Again, wonderful work with this article. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod edit

I may not do a full review, but these points caught my eye:

  1. ^ Singh (2013).
  2. ^ Miller (2011).
  3. ^ University, Lancaster. "Terry Eagleton - English & Creative Writing - Lancaster University - Lancaster University". Retrieved 29 June 2016.
  • I appreciate the feedback here, as this one of the paragraphs I most struggled to write. Take a look at the new description in the first paragraph of Background (which also incorporates more of his early leftism based on another review comment) and let me know if you still have concerns. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eagleton is an Irish Catholic." No, he's not, not in British English anyway! He lacks the essential qualification of being Irish, since he was born & grew up in Salford, effectively Manchester. You should work in an adjectival form such as "Irish Catholic family/background".
  • You only have a 3-para lead; I think the article justifies 4.
    • There's now a new second paragraph, more synopsis of the book with a focus on basic concepts to make the rest of the article accessible to more readers. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All good - thanks. I may complete a review , but if I don't, I'm certainly not opposing, & please don't wait for me. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Feel free to revert any of my copyedits if you disagree with them.

I've split the first part of the lead back into two paragraphs, as a fourth lead paragraph was introduced on suggestion by a reviewer above that one was justified, and I thought that was a good idea. (I see WP:LEADLENGTH as just a rule of thumb.) For readability, I think the content is better as two paragraphs here. I'm otherwise happy with the copyedits. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have most of the definitions in italics in the second paragraph of the background section, but not "productive forces"; any reason not to make that italic too?
    • A now-corrected oversight. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of infelicities of phrasing:
    • "most major"
    • "Marx's view of societal progression (through modes of production and class struggle) can develop in different directions". The intended meaning is clearly that societal progression can develop in different directions, but as written "develop" has "Marx's view" as its subject. And simpler language would be possible here: "Marx's view was that societies can develop in different directions" -- do we lose anything if we don't have both "progress" and "develop"?
      • Implemented your suggestion. In fact, avoiding "progress" is perhaps better anyway (from capitalism to fascism is not "progress" in the sense of "an improvement"). — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Chapters three to six, wrote The Times Literary Supplement, somewhat redeemed the rest of the book, with its potential utility to historians": "chapters" is plural, so "its" is wrong since it can't sensibly refer to "book"; I think "their" would sound odd too because of the intervening clause so restructuring is probably needed.
      • Yeah, you're right: reworded. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "criticised that"
      • Does "thought that" flow better? — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He says that inadequate material resources": suggest "He says that a socialist regime with inadequate material resources".
    • Not used that exact phrasing, as I'd then have to re-use "regime" or introduce redundancy with a synonym, but I think it is better as: "He says that socialism with inadequate material resources results in regimes like Stalinist Russia ..." — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...centred people as active beings with agency": having read some Eagleton, and some related theory, I know what this means, but can we make "centred" a bit more comprehensible to a reader unfamiliar with this sort of discussion?
    • Is it clearer as "Marx's form of materialism started with the fundamental concept that people are active beings with agency"? — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but contemporary Marxists contend that socialism cannot be achieved through control of the state due to power held by private financial institutions". If this argument says what I think it says (that these institutions would be able to successfully combat any democratically elected socialist government's policies) then how does Eagleton regard this as rebutting the fear of authoritarianist Marxism?
    • I think it's partly tangential—what you read in is a correct inference—but partly the idea is that Marxists can't install an authoritarian state if they fundamentally do not wish to control the state at all. (Eagleton writes, "The fact that, generally speaking, politics is in hock to economics is the reason why the state as we know it cannot simply be hijacked for socialist ends".) And then, with the "withering away of the state" explanation we see that the alternative to controlling the state is dismantling it. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comparison to the caricatures of Freud bothers me; I think I know what is meant but one should not define a term by simile, since it assumes knowledge about the other term. I'd suggest cutting that and combining this sentence with the previous one: 'Eagleton was interested in the rhetorical conceit of defending Marxism against individual points of layperson criticism, that Marxism is "irrelevant or offensive or authoritarian or backward-looking", and believed Marx's views had been "extraordinarily caricatured" '.
    • I see your point, done. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd cut the sentence about the letter from the reader and the reply that Marx is dead -- not something I'd argue about but for me it doesn't illuminate or entertain enough to include.
    • I do think it has a slight point beyond just being amusing—the past tense isn't meant to imply that Marx is no longer relevant/"right"—so I'd prefer to keep it unless anyone else raises the same point. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "judged Eagleton's cultural allusions to be performative": I think "performative" is the wrong word -- "relating to performance" isn't right, and nor is it a case (such as the verb "to thank") where the allusions can be said to perform rather than describe. I think you could just cut it: "...cultural allusion to be 'trying too hard to reach...'".
  • There are still a couple of "why?" tags in the reception section -- I didn't place them and I'm not convinced they're necessary, but take a look and see what you think -- they will have to be removed or addressed before this can be promoted.
    • Ah, that's based on the review by Czar above, but apparently I missed a couple. Now fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Sewell and Smith books, are these chapters in edited books? If so, suggest including page ranges.
    • The first is also a print book but the citation is to a URL, which doesn't have a page number (and I'm not sure glossaries always do). I accessed the second on Google Books, where page numbers don't seem to be available. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review and copyediting, Mike Christie. I believe I've addressed all of your comments. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only outstanding point for me is that your explanation above that starts "I think it's partly tangential" makes it clear to me here, but I think that should be clearer in the article. Can you transfer some of that explanation into the article text? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: yep, I've now had a go at rewording with that explanation in mind. — Bilorv (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely better, but now do we need "a capitalist state can still serve some class-neutral or positive interests"? It doesn't address the point of the chapter, does it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's useful in giving the nuance that Marxists don't (necessarily) believe that decreasing the power of the state is always the right move: for instance, in the cases of welfare, free education for all etc. — Bilorv (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. One minor question left above, but it doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help! — Bilorv (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox seems to be mixing information from different editions - for example the publication date is for the first but the OCLC is for the second. Why is this? If it's necessary to do this, can we provide some clarity for the reader?
    • No reason other than oversight, now consistently first edition info. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2: pages?
    • As mentioned above—I'm accessing via Google Books, which doesn't give page numbers, but the chapter is given (and it's the first page of the chapter being cited). — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like ProQuest does supply page numbers for some of those still lacking them?
  • Bottomore: the ISBN supplied seems to be for a different edition than the one cited? Ditto Sewell, check throughout
    • Fixed those two, checked the others and no issues, but I've added "edition" parameters where there's more than one edition. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like this has now broken some of the harvlinks. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should have anticipated that, fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of References. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alphabetisation by author surname (those with no author credit listed last) should now be correct. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite - Barry. Also how are you ordering entries without authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could have sworn "r" comes before "h"... Entries without authors go last, and then within that alphabetically by publisher name. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Guettarda edit

Looks pretty good overall.

  • Synopsis, paragraph 9: "According to Eagleton, a capitalist state can still serve some class-neutral or positive interests" - I don't get how this fits in here, or relates to the "however" in the following sentence.
    • Now removed as Mike Christie highlighted the same sentence as unclear/unnecessary. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final paragraph: "despite Marx's mixed views on imperialism" - this is a bit cryptic, and the link isn't very helpful in explaining Marx's mixed views.
    • It's supposed to be a fairly direct summary of Eagleton's "Marx himself was somewhat more ambiguous about anticolonialist politics". Eagleton goes on to describe how Marx and Engels sometimes supported colonialism and sometimes anti-imperialist movements. Hopefully it's a bit clearer as "... despite Marx speaking in favour of imperialism in some cases" (Eagleton lists cases including India and Bolívar-led regions). — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: Is there some reason you just listed Canadian best-seller lists (including one very regional one)? Eagleton is a British academic, based in the UK, and the book was published by a US-based press. It feels oddly specific and incomplete.
    • It's complete as far as my research has shown. I don't think it made any British or American best-seller lists, or that sales data is public information. It is strange and I've not found a particular reason for its Canadian success, but that's what the sources say. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception/Writing style/Subject matter: "Economic and Political Weekly believed...as did Social Scientist" - publications don't have beliefs, people do. Unless it's an unsigned editorial, I think it's important to attribute opinions and reviews should be attributed to people rather than publications.
    • The current practice was reached after czar's review above, where attributions by author surnames (with publication name on first mention) were replaced with publication name for readability. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sticking my oar in to say that I think it's good practice to drop the authors' names where they are not themselves notable -- the reader is typically going to care more about the publication name, which they're more likely to have heard of, and the citation will give them the authors' names if they want them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree rather strongly except when you're talking about staff writers (I'm especially against in when it comes to academic journals - even book reviews) but I'm not going to oppose on this. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with you, in truth, but this is perhaps a matter for wider discussion, as use of publication name like this is common on Wikipedia. At least in this article it's more pertinent contextual information to say that The American Conservative gave a negative review, rather than that Samuel Goldman gave a negative review. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing style, para 3: "The book is an apologia of Marx, wrote The New Republic" - is this supposed to be a quote?
    • No, but they use the word "apologia". Now "... according to The New Republic". — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject matter, para 1: "The American Conservative and The Guardian writer Owen Hatherley believed that the ten objections were not straw men, but Libertarian Papers and Financial Times felt they were arbitrarily chosen" - I'm not sure I see the contrast here implied by the "but". "And" or "while" seem like better connectors (unless I'm missing something).
    • "while" is fine by me. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the Reception as a whole I'm left with the conclusion that reviews were generally negative, something that's not reflected in the lead or the overall tone. Guettarda (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this is something removed by earlier reviewer feedback, as an earlier version read "The book was met with mostly negative reception from critics ...", but was seen as original research. I am perennially frustrated with the community's divided view on this topic, as half of reviewers will always demand such a summary is included (the lead must summarise the body), and half will always demand its removal (such summaries are necessarily SYNTH). — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I didn't get the "negative" opinion from the lead, but that might just have been me projecting ("it's an FA candidate, so the book must have been viewed well"). Guettarda (talk)
Thanks for the comments, Guettarda, and I've made an effort at addressing them. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bilorv. Looks good, other than it looks like you broke the citation to Bottomore when you made one of your fixes (there's a lot of red in the "Citations" section. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an add-on that's giving you red? No red showed up to me. But I think I've fixed the citation issues. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant the error messages. Looks good now. Switching to support. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This is almost ready to promote, the only thing remaining is Nikkimaria or another editor passing the source review. (t · c) buidhe 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Why_Marx_Was_Right/archive1&oldid=1060350006"