Talk:History of philosophy/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: SilverTiger12 (talk · contribs) 00:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Heyla! I'll take this one. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello SilverTiger12 and thanks for doing this review! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @SilverTiger12, are you returning to this review soon? Generally, comments from the reviewer should be wrapped up in about a week. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I've been busy in real life and it sucks. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the wait, real life happens. Beginning with the lede:
- The lede is good, and the lede image is an excellent selection of influential philosophers from around the world.
- The first section, Definition and related disciplines, is a bit of a wall of text but I can't really see a way to make it less so.
- My first big question is why is this article split into sections based on traditions and not purely chronological?
- There are different ways to organize the topics and I don't think there is only one "right" way. An important reason for organizing the article into traditions is that the main traditions developed mostly independently of each other and a substantial interaction between them is a very recent phenomenon. One possible exception may be the relation between Western and Arabic–Persian philosophy. This approach is also followed by several reliable sources, such as the series A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps and Grayling 2019. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, if that's what the sources prefer. SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @SilverTiger12, do you have further comments and feedback for the nominator? If you no longer have time to review the article, that's not a problem, but this review should be closed and the nomination should go back in the pool to be picked up. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- The scope of the article might justify taking longer than the 7-day recommendation but it has been almost a month now. I would feel bad about closing the review if SilverTiger12 has already written the major part of the review offline and just needs to add their comments here. But otherwise, it might be best to close the review, increment the page number of the GA talk page template by one, and send the article back to the pool. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry. I've been reading this article off and on when I can-this month has been hell for me in other ways, which is why I suddenly vanished from Wikipedia. Ultimately, I can't find any major issues I have with this article though, and I am genuinely sorry it took the entire month to reach this point where I am comfortable passing this article. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The scope of the article might justify taking longer than the 7-day recommendation but it has been almost a month now. I would feel bad about closing the review if SilverTiger12 has already written the major part of the review offline and just needs to add their comments here. But otherwise, it might be best to close the review, increment the page number of the GA talk page template by one, and send the article back to the pool. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @SilverTiger12, do you have further comments and feedback for the nominator? If you no longer have time to review the article, that's not a problem, but this review should be closed and the nomination should go back in the pool to be picked up. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, if that's what the sources prefer. SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are different ways to organize the topics and I don't think there is only one "right" way. An important reason for organizing the article into traditions is that the main traditions developed mostly independently of each other and a substantial interaction between them is a very recent phenomenon. One possible exception may be the relation between Western and Arabic–Persian philosophy. This approach is also followed by several reliable sources, such as the series A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps and Grayling 2019. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.