Wikipedia:Peer review/Philosophy/archive1

Philosophy[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FAC. My experience with the FAC process is still rather limited so I was hoping to get some feedback on possible problems with the current state of this article.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: This has been open for over a month without feedback. Are you still looking for comments, or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for the reminder. I'm still hoping to get feedback at some point before the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest asking for feedback on the Wikiprojects attached to this article, or getting feedback from editors who have written similar articles at FAC recently. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea in principle. However, I usually find it hard to get enough people to comment at the FA nomination itself so I may have to go around and ask individual editors and post on Wikiprojects for this later step. This is usually easier if you haven't already sent a round of requests to the editors to help with the peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lovely article! I will review it and get back to you in a few days. I'm looking forward to seeing this at FAC – I think the last successful FA nom for a level 1 vital article was Earth back in 2007! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look at it. I assume the expectations will be high for this type of nominations so I'm happy that I don't have to start it without a prior peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can count on me for a support at FAC! The article is elegant, well referenced, and most importantly, brief. You cover the main points but don't get bogged down in detail. The only comments I have are some extremely minor prose tweaks and a few reference issues.

a renewed interest in various schools of Ancient philosophy: I think ancient should be lowercase here.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
expresses incredulity when told by the Oracle at Delphi that he was the wisest person of all. I would change the tenses to match one another, either expressed and was the wisest or expresses and is the wisest.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What he comes to conclude is that his You could make this more brief - he comes to conclude that.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
aesthetics is the "critical reflection on art, culture, and nature". I recommend removing "the", “the reflection” sounds odd to me.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as well as legal rights. Could be more brief - and legal rights.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It requires thinking "as hard and as clearly...about some of the most interesting and enduring problems that human minds have ever encountered" I like this quote but I think it is missing the comparison. “As hard and as clearly” should be followed by “as something else”, right?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is something odd going on with Du 2012, the text seems garbled, almost like it was machine-generated or machine-translated. Could you take a look and see what you think? I spot checked about 10 refs and this was the only one I had an issue with.
The source supports the text but you are right its composition is a little odd. For example, one sentence is about college freshmen and the next sentence defines philosophy without a transition. The text is also supported by the other sources so I removed this one. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For ref number 162, you have five references in a single citation, at the end of the paragraph. What is the advantage of doing that versus spreading out the sources in multiple citations throughout the paragraph? To me it looks like this makes it harder to figure out which source supports which sentence.
Most of them cover most of the claims in the paragraph but you are right that this makes it more difficult to check source-text integrity so I pulled them apart. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of the works in the bibliography have page numbers, for example Kenny 2009 or Kulke 1998. To my mind they don't need this since the page numbers will be given above in the citations. Is there an advantage to including page numbers in the bibliography?
Good point. I removed them. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, Schroeder 2021 has a quote in the bibliography, I think this quote should go in the citation section.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the Google Books links in the bibliography have archive urls, I think you could remove those since it is unlikely that Google Books is going to go down. But then again I guess they don't hurt anything. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

@Cerebellum: Thanks for the feedback and all the helpful suggestions! That should help me muster the confidence to begin the nomination. I hope to get it started in the next few days. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great :) --Cerebellum (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]