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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 14:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'll take a look sometime in the next seven days and then leave some initial comments. SilkTork *^YES! 14:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will make some initial comments as I read through, and then summarise. SilkTork *^YES! 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose is clear and readable. There isn't too much reliance on WP:Jargon, though the terms periphery and core are used in the lead without explanation. A quick definition of those terms would be helpful - a link to their respective articles would be for those who wished to know more detail than a simple definition. SilkTork *^YES! 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is stable. SilkTork *^YES! 16:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Images have appropriate copyright tags. Some of the later images could be captioned in a manner that makes their presence in the article clearer - see WP:Captions. The ballot box is simply captioned "Ballot box", which is not very helpful! SilkTork *^YES! 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• References. The article has plentiful in-line cites to a range of text books, though the 1914-Today section is uncited. I haven't checked the sources yet, and will make spot checks later to ensure that what is said in the article is what is said in the sources. SilkTork *^YES! 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarity of ideas. There does need to be an explanation of core and periphery in the lead as it does help the reader get a quick grasp of the semi-periphery concept. Encyclopedia.com takes that approach, and I find their introduction very helpful: [1]

"World-systems theorists originally conceptualized global power relations in terms of core (metropolitan) capitalist states and their weaker underdeveloped dependants in the periphery. The concept of the semi-periphery was subsequently devised in recognition of the inadequacy of the bipolarity of the original formulation. It referred to those nation-states which were neither core nor peripheral but somewhere in between. These societies remained dependent, and to some extent underdeveloped, despite having achieved significant levels of industrialization. Examples include Greece and Ireland."

I think it's worth incorporating some of those ideas, and explaining semi-periphery in terms of an explanation of core and periphery. SilkTork *^YES! 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref section. Would you please organise the bibliography in alphabetical order by author surname, and only link a person's name on the first mention, and delink redlinks unless you intend to create an article on that author in the near future, and have evidence of that person's notability. SilkTork *^YES! 11:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done it. SilkTork *^YES! 11:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Function section is written from the perspective of an essay rather than an encyclopedia entry. For example, the statement "The semi periphery is needed to stabilize the world system..." could be written as "The view is that the semi periphery is needed to stabilize the world system..." We need to be informed about the theory as a theory. SilkTork *^YES! 11:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the cites do not have page numbers, the Janet Abu-Lughod cites for example. This makes checking the source very difficult. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. SilkTork *^YES! 12:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The statement "The term semi-periphery originated in the thirteenth century" is sourced to Abu-Lughod's book, though that is not what she says. She is arguing that what Wallerstein terms a modern world system, and theorises has been developing since the 17th century, was in place in the 13th century. I now feel very insecure that this article is correct. I know nothing about this theory, but I from the little I have read while researching for this review I am disturbed that the explanations in the lead are not helpful, and that the first statement I check is incorrect, misleading, and a poor reading of the source. This article needs examining by an expert on the subject. I will put the review onhold until an expert can be found. SilkTork *^YES! 12:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference checks have indicated that the information in the article is unreliable. On hold for seven days for the article to be checked by an expert on the subject. SilkTork *^YES! 12:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will close this as a fail in 2 days unless there is some progress. I have tagged the article with my concerns that it is unreliable, and written more from the perspective of an essay rather than an article. My understanding is that the article has been written by a student for an assignment, and it is possible that the student may not have a firm grasp of the topic, and has been misreading the sources. The article needs checking by an expect in the subject. The tutor who assigned the task is currently restricted from editing, but should be able to sort out the issues when he has full access. SilkTork *^YES! 11:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs checking by an expert. SilkTork *^YES! 09:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]