Wikipedia:Peer review/Fourth International/archive1
Fourth International[edit]
Largely my own work; I submitted it to Featured Article Candidates some time ago, but it was suggested that it was a little short and didn't set the context clearly. I've tried to remedy this but would welcome some comments on this from people both with and without prior knowledge of the subject - or on any other aspect! Warofdreams 18:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The article needs real references. Listing lists which themselves cite no sources is improper and not helpful. 2) The lead should quickly explain what a Trotskyist is so that someone who is not familiar with that can still understand the article easily. 3) The article should ideally have a section detailing the impact (or lack therof) of the organisation. When did it fall apart? - Taxman 19:25, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll get to work on your second and third suggestions. The list you mention is infact the index of an online version of a book on the international, with each link a different chapter. I'm not sure how to reference it more clearly. Warofdreams 10:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The way it is now, as a 'See also' is just fine. Another point I saw is I agree with the previous comments you mentioned above. The article still needs more context. The title lets us know there were more Internationals, so this article should explain how this one fits in with all the others (the part about the Third is a good start), and quickly what an International is that makes it different (if anything) from any other international organization in general. Also, since claiming the end of the organization while some still claim to be it, is potentially a POV nightmare, try to find the best sources you can and cite them directly for the claims that none of the current organizations resemble the original, etc. Good citations is the only way I know to avoid that POV mess. - Taxman 21:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions - ideas of what context to present is exactly what I need - I think I'm a bit too close to the subject to know. The connection to the first two internationals is really minimal, but I've added some lines to explain it. I've also added a section explaining Trotksyism. Like you say, the end of the organisation is a mess, so I'll look into quotes on it. Warofdreams 17:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The way it is now, as a 'See also' is just fine. Another point I saw is I agree with the previous comments you mentioned above. The article still needs more context. The title lets us know there were more Internationals, so this article should explain how this one fits in with all the others (the part about the Third is a good start), and quickly what an International is that makes it different (if anything) from any other international organization in general. Also, since claiming the end of the organization while some still claim to be it, is potentially a POV nightmare, try to find the best sources you can and cite them directly for the claims that none of the current organizations resemble the original, etc. Good citations is the only way I know to avoid that POV mess. - Taxman 21:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll get to work on your second and third suggestions. The list you mention is infact the index of an online version of a book on the international, with each link a different chapter. I'm not sure how to reference it more clearly. Warofdreams 10:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)