This peer review discussion has been closed.
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet. -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cyber Rights was recently promoted as a Good Article, and I would like some feedback on how to further improve its quality. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature. -- Cirt (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified User talk:Scartol, User talk:Sadads, and User talk:Steve Smith. -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch comments: This seems pretty well done and is an interesting read; here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC. I started this review and was nearly done when I had a computer glitch and lost it - sorry for the delay.
- One of the FAC criteria is comprehensiveness - there is relatively little on the writing of the book (has Godwin discussed why he wrote it or how long it took?) There is also very little on the second edition / switch of publishers. What revisions / changes were made in the new edition (usually there is some information on this in the introduction to a new edition or perhaps reviews of it). Any idea what the sales figures are? I see form the infobox that he has written another book - it is a sequel or followup? Is there anything in the next book on this book? Since this was his first book, he might have written something about it in the second... I realize much of this information might not be available, but if it is, I think it should definitley be added. As it is there it not much on the book that is not content or reviews
- I know it is no longer a FAC requirement, but there is no alt text
- The lead seems a bit light ion terms of content of the book - Contents is the second biggest section in the article, but is only about two sentences in the lead
- There are places where two or more sentences in a row each have the same reference at the end. Unless they have direct quotes or make extraordinary claims, is there any reason not to have one ref at the end of series of sentences that all are based on the same material?
- I also thought it might help to have some sort of introductory sentence or two in the Reception section, to give an overview before diving into the many reviews.
- I thought the reception section was pretty quote heavy and worry a bit that it might be running into potential WP:NFCC issues. Many of the quotes are good and well chosen, but some are pretty mundane and seem like they could be paraphrased without much trouble, for example Booklist recommended Cyber Rights be carried in libraries, concluding, "Most libraries will want copies for both circulating and professional collections."[3]
- The prose is a bit rough in spots - some examples follow, would probably help to get a copyedit
- Isn't the usual formulation "Written from a first-person perspective..."? Written with a first-person perspective, Cyber Rights gives the reader a background in legal issues ..."
- Author section - any reason not to put the year he was graduated from law school in the first sentence?
- Two short sentences that could flow better if combined Cyber Rights is Godwin's first book.[12] Godwin has described himself as a civil libertarian.[6] so perhaps something like Cyber Rights is the first book by Godwin,[12] who has described himself as a civil libertarian.[6]
- Tighten The author provides enough background
such that a layperson can understand the relevant legal history involving free speech on the Internet, including explaining what is and is not considered libel, and going over the extent to which copyrighted text may be quoted and used as fair use.[6]
- Make sure Internet / internet is captialized (or not) consistently
- Paragraph starting The author discusses influential legal cases including a judgment involving Compuserve, ... has some issues. Tow sentences in a row start with "He" - could one use Godwin instead? More importantly, I think the last three cases in this paragraph need to be explained better so the reader understands what is going on. Since it seems Godwin was involved in most (all?) of the cases - could that be made clearer too? This is nicely done for the Cyberporn paragraph that follows.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response
Thank you very much to Ruhrfisch for the above comments! I will go through them and address recommended changes while improving upon the article. -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome - hope some of the others you've notified review this too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]