Talk:An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) 00:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Extended content Re: the red link for Priscilla N. Cohn, we do have Priscilla Cohn Redirect created. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) "... one of the first works to link the ethical question of animal rights to political philosophy and political theory." Not sure this is correct as written; better to say something like it's one of the first to examine animal rights in terms of theories of justice. I've had trouble with that line, but it's part of what makes the book worth talking about; how's "one of the first works to link the ethical question of animal rights to the concept of justice as used in political philosophy and political theory"? J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) This could use a tweak: "Finally, Cochrane considers what he calls "radical" critics of Singer ...". He doesn't really say that. He writes that "[w]hat Reagan is putting forward here is retially radical," and he doesn't mention Nussbaum at all in terms of radical criticism, or radicalism, that I can see (Nussbaum is fairly conservative). I've not got the book to hand right now- I'll check this tomorrow. I remember being surprised that he considered Nussbaum "radical", so I think he does say it elsewhere (perhaps in the chapter summary). J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Yeah; p. 42, there's a section titled "Radical critics of Singer", in which Cochrane considers Regan and Nussbaum. He says that they offer "two important types of criticism" that Singer is not radical enough. I agree with you that the section title's an odd one, but I'd like to follow the book in the synopsis! J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC) focusses --> focuses Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Something missing here: "However, he focuses the remainder of the chapter to four critiques of this line of thought." Changed to "devotes", which I assume I meant to write. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) This is a preference issue, but first, second, third, fourth – or even first, secondly, etc – is better than firstly, secondly. Changed. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Another preference issue: consider breaking up some of the longer paragraphs, e.g. the one beginning "Chapter five assesses ..." Done, but I was trying to avoid a "paragraph per chapter" approach; any ideas on how I can rework it to avoid that? Or do you think it doesn't matter? J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Can this be tweaked? "... he criticises the possibility that this exploitation is caused by capitalism ..." He probably isn't criticizing the possibility. Changed to "...but he is critical of the argument that this exploitation is caused..." J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) "the two relationships of oppression": not really clear what that means. Changed to "four ways in which the oppression of women and of animals may be linked". J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Also not clear: that they may be linked through "ideas about dominion over nature, the cultural exaltation of meat-eating, the use of language and through objectification." I see what you might mean by the second two, and I can perhaps guess about the first two, but it could be made clearer. I've expanded it- clearer? J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Another preference issue, per OVERLINK: I wouldn't link ordinary words such as "nature." Gone. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Not clear in the "central argument" section what the six schools of thought are, so I'd suggest making them clearer in the previous section or reiterating them here in the first sentence of the section. In his chapter titles Cochrane lists five: utilitarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism. Has this been removed? I can't see it. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) "can not" --> cannot This too seems to have been fixed. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) "anticipating a critique" --> anticipating a criticism Again. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) "would have benefited if more space was given" --> would have benefited if more space had been given Done. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) a wide array positions --> a wide array of positions Done. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Not sure I understand the second part of: "[Garner] points to the possibility that animals may be owed direct duties without being the recipients of justice, and the possibility that they may be owed indirect duties, that is, duties to non-human animals for the benefit of humans." How does the second part relate to the previous sentence – the author being unduly uncritical of deploying theories of justice? Also, it is not the animals that are owed indirect duties. This should be clearer now. J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC) "The second theme identified" --> The second theme Garner identified Done. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Seems odd to have a footnote after an uncontentious point: "In the course of the review, he looked forward[50] ..." I wanted to show where in the review he did that, and cite the book itself- how would you do it? J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) interesed-based rights theory --> interest-based Done. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) "Two versions of the book ...": sounds as though they differ in content. Suggest: "The book is available in hardback and paperback." Done. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
	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.
	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).
	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).
	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.	Looks good to go.

Discussion

Hi J Milburn, just a note to say that I'm enjoying reading this. I've posted some suggestions and I'll continue with the review tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi- I'm glad you were willing to take this up, despite our past disagreements. I know this is an area in which you have considerable expertise. J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Just as a suggestion, I did a quick copy edit of the first few sections (I stress that it was a quick one, so if I left typos and other errors, I apologize). I also included section headings to see what that would look like, then self-reverted. I wrote "concluding chapter" for the final heading, but intended to change that to "conclusion."

I wonder if these subheads would makes it easier for the reader to navigate the positions. You might feel it's too scattered looking. It's up to you; the article is fine either way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• A question about this: "He closes the book by claiming that, if what he has said is right, treatment of animals should actually be considered one of the most pressing political questions today." Can you make clearer what he means by this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked this; hopefully it's clearer?

Ok, I think everything you raised has been fixed (apart from the "radical" point, which I hope I have explained). I've also expanded the lead a little and added a picture of Carol Adams. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Those changes look good, and the article is certainly fine for GA, so I'll add shortly that it has passed. Thanks for writing it. I enjoyed reading through it.

Minor quibble: you changed to first, second ... but in reception, it's firstly.

Not so minor: I'm still unclear about: "He closes by arguing that, if the book's claims are correct, treatment of animals should be considered one of the most pressing political questions today." What claims does he make that mean treatment of animals is one of the most pressing political questions? It's a big claim, and it isn't obvious to me having read through the article what he's referring to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review- I've made the first fix, and will look into the second soon. I'm working on an article on Cochrane's second book, after which I'll look into beefing out his own article. As an aside, you may be interested to know that I chatted to Rob Garner about Wikipedia, and he said he's generally very impressed with our coverage of animal rights issues, and even tried to cite some articles in his work once (until an editor told him to take it out). I know you're at least partially responsible for a lot of those articles! J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi (ping), sorry for not replying to this, but I only just saw it. That's interesting what you say about Garner. I'm in the process of reading Cochrane's second book, by the way, so if you ever want to ping me for some input I'd be very interested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.