- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is a B-class article that appears to have potential. While it may have some rough edges, with a bit of work this article could make it to GA status. It is currently a Good Article Nominee, and I am looking for feedback from other editors as to what they think of it. Any suggestions of any sorts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, J.T Pearson (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I bring the eyes of an outsider to this article, and I have a few suggestions for improvement.
- What I most long for as I read the article are specific examples to make the generalizations more rich and clear. For example, the second sentence of the lead mentions "currents of thought", but nowhere in the article are these currents explained except in general terms. It's OK to quote someone saying that Polish sociology is a "notable and separate field", but you need to show us how it is notable, how it is different from, say, the sociology of Russia, or the sociology of Italy. I'm not convinced it's sufficient to say that the sociology of Poland is different from the sociology of Russia because they are two different countries, and to let it go at that. I'd suggest working into the main text at least a brief description of the ideas of Znaniecki, Malinowski, and the other most prominent Polish sociologists. Go beyond labels like "Marxist" or "positivist" and tell us more specifically what these guys were thinking about and saying and, if possible, what difference this made on life in Poland.
- Three sources for the entire article are extremely few, and about half of the article is devoted to lists. I think these two things are related; it may be that the lists are meant to substitute for development of the main text. They can't. Perhaps the specifics that I am longing for in the main text might be found in the journals and papers in the lists and summarized or quoted, with citations. This would make the main text longer and more interesting and the lists shorter and more to the point. I realize that incorporating this material will be time-consuming and difficult, but it should also produce a more compelling article.
- I notice some smaller things that need fixing. In the journals list, PAN only needs to be wikilinked once. Journal articles should be set off by quotation marks to distinguish them from book-length works, which should appear in italics. I'd suggest making the "further reading" list alphabetical by author's last name; e.g., Znaniecka, Eileen Markley, rather than Eileen Markley Znaniecka. I see other copyediting work to be done here as well. My third suggestion is to find a copyeditor to help with Manual of Style issues.
If you have questions or would like more comments, please ask. I hope these comments are helpful. Please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the peer review backlog. That is where I found this article. Finetooth (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)