Talk:Paul Goodman

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Goodman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sahaib3005 (talk · contribs) 06:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it passes. It is quite a good article. I’m not seeing any problems with the article. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed tag to be addressed, would also like opinions on the tone (narrative). Kingsif (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   It is reasonably well written

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   It is referenced with reliable sources. Though there isn’t much, most are from the same books (Mattson, Smith, Widmer, etc).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It is broad, it covers his life, personal life, reception, etc

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It seems neutral, there is no peacock words. There may be a slight bias in favour towards him, because I’m not seeing much bad things.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looking through the history there is no edit wars

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There isn’t much images, except for the one in the lead which is a fair use image

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   It seems to pass. I learned a lot about him from reading this wikipedia article. It links to a external video which is useful. It also has a good layout, and has notes, further reading and external links.

New reviewer needed

I've changed the status of this nomination to "second opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found that way, since the original reviewer withdrew after the premature passage was reverted. Even though they then came back and repassed it a few days later, the new review was done so quickly that it would be better if an experienced reviewer checked the article against the criteria (just a quick look finds issues with MOS:LEAD, a GA criterion, which should be fixed prior to passage). A full GA review is needed, starting from scratch. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC) [updated at 03:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)]

Femke, responding to second opinion

Hello Czar. I'll be picking up the GA review. I can understand that the previous reviewer passed without comment, as the article is in good shape. I can do some nitpicking with respect to criterion 1 and criterion 4. The level is English required to be able to understand this article is quite high, and I believe we could serve our readers better by using more everyday language (or, when impossible, linking to wiktionary). It may be an overbroad interpretation of criterion 1, so don't feel forced to change all of them.

• outre?
• how come two of his siblings are mentioned, but not the third?
  • Alice and Percy are discussed later in the article, hence the introduction, whereas his brother Arnold is nary mentioned in any source czar 16:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• audited?
  • academic audit
• open bisexual is a phrase I'm not familiar with for describing bisexual and in an open relationship
• It's not quite clear what relation the sentence (Goodman was deferred and rejected from the World War II draft.[8]) has to the previous sentence. If it's just some background about something happening before Partisan review removed him, you could put it in a different tense: "Goodman himself had been deferred and rejected from the World War II draft". Or is his rejection part of the advocacy in some manner?
  • Is it not clear that giving his WWII draft status is related to the previous sentence's mention of his draft avoidance advocacy? Yes, it's background info and without the draft avoidance connection, it likely wouldn't warrant mention. czar 18:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• late-40s: no hyphen, not an adjective
• his lack of wider recognition weathered his resolve -> should we say this in wikivoice? Do we know his inner thoughts?
  • Goodman was known for his self-expression and this is sourced to his literary executor, the person most qualified to say that Goodman was discouraged by lack of wider recognition czar 16:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• rut?
• lionized?
• was not affected by their reaction -> again, this is inner thoughts, so should be attributed / weakened.
• that today forms the basis of his legacy -> that forms the basis of his legacy (no need for today)
• Goodman doesn't offer a single definition of human nature, and suggests that it needs no definition for others to that some activities are against it -> grammar
• As the New Left was born with the Berkeley Free Speech Movement's proactively involved and democratic dialogue,[17] Goodman became known as its philosopher -> grammar?
• link common-law marriage, rather than common law to help reader understand
• tertium quid?
• Goodman's strange celebrity was tied to his physical presence, not the charisma of his platform or gadfly personality. While his celebrity left public circulation as quickly as it came, his principles and outré proposals retained their stature as a vision of human potential -> should this be in wikivoice? I find it too celebratory to be said without explicit attribution. Why 'strange celebrity'?
• Why split life and personal life?
  • It's a common Wikipedia paradigm (cf. Noam Chomsky). The idea is that intricate family and personal details normally distracts from or does not fit in a section about a person's career. czar 18:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Spot-checked a couple of sources, and text-source integrity seems spotless. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Appreciate the review, @Femkemilene! I believe I've addressed the above either in comments or edits, where pertinent. czar 18:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Femkemilene, just wanted to make sure you saw my reply—believe I've addressed the above czar 05:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

sorry, I've been ill. Hope to get brains back soon. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Page history situation

The current page history situation, with the Paul Goodman page containing a draft that was worked on in userspace by Czar from 2013 to 2019 and Paul Goodman (writer) containing the pre-rewrite text, strikes me as more than a little dishonest and highly unusual. I'd like to do some history merges/splits to make it a bit more reflective of how the article actually developed in the main namespace. For example, this edit does not show the beginnings of an article about Paul Goodman and it takes quite a bit of traipsing through page history and logs to figure out what actually happened. I would do the following:

• Move all history from before the page was moved to userspace to a separate location, probably eventually Paul Goodman (writer)
• History merge all the edits currently at Paul Goodman (writer) to Paul Goodman, so all the edits in the main namespace relating to this person are in one place.
• Move Talk:Paul Goodman (writer) to be an archive of this page.

While Czar there's only one edit in the userspace history not made by you, it's only an AWB edit that had nothing to do with the final main namespace product, so we won't be losing any vital authorship info by doing things this way. Unless you object (or you want to try changing it yourself as an admin), I'd like to do the page history changes I've described above, but I'm asking first because of how unusual this situation is. It wouldn't be impossible to reverse the history splitting once I'd done it, but I'd prefer not to have to do that. I found out about this situation while checking out the Paul Goodman page history after this article by Ted Gioia. This situation led me to do an uncontroversial history merge at Paul Goodman (politician). Graham87 04:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Graham87, feel free to merge as you see fit. I wrote from scratch so there is no shared history. czar 05:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, all done. Graham87 05:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment

I am a Goodman "fan" and familiar with his life and work. I added a few sentences about his books being republished and Taylor Stoehr's unfinished biography. I like the Wikipedia article a lot, thoughtful and balanced to my view, and many good sources. Thomasrodd (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Moved from [1]

Thanks, @Thomasrodd. I've been working on PG's set of articles for close to a decade now and glad to see it this far along. Not an easy person to write about or summarize. czar 05:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"Libertarian" and "Decentralist"

Reading the article, I've come across what appears to be a frequent vacilating between describing the politics of Goodman as analogous to that of modern libertarian politics in the United States and that of bog-standard Anarchism (social anarchism, to be clear). This appears to be, at most generous, a misunderstanding by some past editor of the change in usage of "libertarian" in the US, where the association between libertarianism and socialism held until the 1970s, but I find the use of "decentralist" as indicative of past editors desire to "claim" him as "one of theirs". Is this switching of terminology intentional? 129.82.95.78 (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)