Wikipedia:Peer review/Ayn Rand/archive3

Ayn Rand edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a GA for over a decade, and I've recently updated and expanded it in preparation for FAC. Since Rand is a controversial figure, any feedback is welcomed but especially any concerns about sourcing, POV, etc. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really my area, but I appreciate that the article makes an effort to cite high-quality sources and stays concise. One thing I would consider is, are there retrospectives for her works' reception? It seems odd to cite contemporary reviews in #Critical reception when you might rely on later scholarship to point out the most influential or important reviews. (t · c) buidhe 10:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks for your feedback! There are indeed such retrospectives, such as Mimi Reisel Gladstein's Ayn Rand Companion and a series of articles by Michael Berliner for the Essays on ... series about Rand's novels. Most of the content in the section is cited to such sources. Following your comment, I've reduced the amount of direct quotation and other detail about specific reviews, although I did leave a few of the most famous and striking quotes, all of which are mentioned in multiple secondary sources. Let me know if you see any other areas that can be improved. --RL0919 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is more like, if the sentence "In National Review, conservative author Whittaker Chambers accused Rand of supporting a godless system (which he related to that of the Soviets), claiming, "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard ... commanding: 'To a gas chamber—go!'"" is supported by multiple secondary sources, you should cite those sources instead of Chambers to show that this review was especially significant for Rand. (t · c) buidhe 20:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. OK, I pulled that fish out of the barrel and shot it. It's one of the most famously negative reviews she ever got. I also added some context for a couple of others that didn't have it stated. Keep 'em coming if you have more feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: This PR has been open since January, and the last comment was posted in February. Are you still interested in receiving comments in this PR? If so, I suggest seeking new reviewers who have written FAs in similar topics. If not, can you close this PR? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]