Wikipedia:Peer review/New World Order (conspiracy theory)/archive1

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how to further improve this article. I also would like a consensus so that the article can retain a nuetral tone.

Thanks, Smallman12q (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:TechOutsider Done

Hello. I'll be your peer reviewer. Interesting article; caught my eye when browsing the backlog. No, I am not too familiar with WP:MOS, however my comments should provide you with a basic idea on what needs to be improved on. I may correct some minor issues, however I will still mention them for your reference.

The lead has some issues. You should rearrange the first paragraph; first explain what the New World Order theory in conspiracy theory, then the other stuff. Some vagueness plagues the lead as well. You mention "at the core of most theories". As Wikipedians, you are not to publish original thought or research. Is there a reference you can use to backup the statement. Remember, after looking on the talk page, this is a controversial topic and needs to be dissected and examined from all points of views. You also use the phrase "in the past". It is as well vague. The phrase "Some warn" is a bit vague, however you back it up with several sources. Can you be more specific? Do government officials warn ...? Political leaders? Professors? Identify who claims the "development may have negative effects on American political life".

The body also has some issues. The section headings, according to WP:MOS, should not use the same word over and over. Drop the theory from each level three heading under the level two heading, "Conspiracy theories".

Anyways, that's all the issues I can find right now. Great article; keep up on the development! Has the potential to become FA-class. Mainly, you should work on the lead; first impressions last and the suggestions listed by the semi-automated review. TechOutsider (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Loremaster

TechOutsider, thank you for your useful review. As you can now see, all the minor issues with the lead have been resolved.

The first paragraph has been changed by deleting the sentence about the definition of the term "new world order" in international relations theory.
The phrase "at the core of most theories" has been replaced by "The common them in conspiracy theories". This statement is no longer original research because it is now backed up by Michael Barkun's book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Barkun is a political scientist who has extensively studied conspiracism in American culture in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular.
The phrase "in the past" was deleted.
The phrase "some warn" has been replaced by "They warn".
Political scientist Micheal Barkun has now been explicitly identified as being one of the skeptics who makes the claim that the "development may have negative effects on American political life".

--Loremaster (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Ludvikus

There's now an active, passionate debate on the article's Talk page - so I wish to hold-off until the debate stabilizes. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]