Talk:Logical reasoning

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Non-pegasus (talk · contribs) 23:54, 18 April 2023 (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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Hi Phylsph7. Thank you for your work on the Logical reasoning wiki. I have completed the initial review. I've put it on hold because of a copyright question-mark concerning the Versailles propaganda poster. More details in the comments on 6b. All else was a pass. Please correct or update the image. The caption was good and relevant and I would hate to see you not add any image to your "As a skill" section over a copyright concern especially when propaganda examples are easy to access. Case in point, the top item in the "Did you know..." section for 18 April 2023 is an example of propaganda you could use. That wiki in fact discusses the logical merits of that British recruitment poster and would be a good example to use in the stead of the Versailles poster. Let me know if you have any questions. I will likely update the review within 24 hours of your corrections. Non-pegasus (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Non-pegasus and thanks for your review! I'm glad that you caught the recently flagged copyright problem for the image of the Versailles poster. Your suggestion works fine as an alternative so I replaced the image and slightly modified the text. Please let me know if other issues catch your eye. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the review, congratulations on your newest Good Article!

A bot will add the good article icon to the article and will remove the nomination from the GA nominations page. This bot should also use GANotice to send you a message that the article has passed. I have added Logical reasoning to the list of "Philosophy" Good articles under the "Philosophy and Religion" section. Well done 🦄 Non-pegasus (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that while feathers are light, and light opposes darkness, feathers do not oppose darkness?
  Source:

  • Engel, S. Morris (2014). With Good Reason an Introduction to Informal Fallacies. St. Martin's Press. pp. 74, 108–11. ISBN 9781457695957.
  • Atwater, Lyman Hotchkiss (1867). Manual of Elementary Logic: Designed Especially for the Use of Teachers and Learners. J. B. Lippincott. p. 167.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Nominated by Non-pegasus (talk) at 02:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Logical reasoning; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Nice article, but I see the main contributor is @Phlsph7:, not @Non-pegasus:. Yet, Phlsph7 isn't mentioned in this nom. BorgQueen (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: Thanks for pointing this out. I assume, under "Improved to Good Article status by", it should be me, i.e. the one who improved and nominated the article for GA and not the one who reviewed the GA nomination. I'm currently quite busy with other things so I'm fine with Non-pegasus taking care of the DYK nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: Definitely not trying to step on anyone's </ref>s! I can't locate the notification I received but Wikipedia seemed to automatically recommend the DYK nomination to me specifically and thought it was a fun idea, not even considering that I could have let the writer do it. I'll be sure to mention the original GA nominator if its a rule and I come across it again. Cheers 🦄 Non-pegasus (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem, I've changed the attribution for the improvement and the nomination. As for the hook, I think it's interesting for someone familiar with the topic but it could be confusing for the uninitiated, see WP:EASTEREGG. More conventional alternatives would be:

• ALT1: ... that there are many types of logical reasoning, like deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning? Source: Flick, Uwe (10 December 2013). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE. p. 123. ISBN 9781446296691.
• ALT2: ... that logical reasoning is relevant both on a theoretical level, to avoid false beliefs, and on a practical level, to make rational and effective decisions? Source: Dowden, Bradley H. (2020). Logical Reasoning (PDF). pp. 1, 13. (for an earlier version, see: Dowden, Bradley Harris (1993). Logical Reasoning. Wadsworth Publishing Company. ISBN 9780534176884.

But my experience with DYK is still rather limited so it might be good if someone else could weigh in on this. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that the feathers—light—darkness hook will make a great quirky hook. @Bruxton and Theleekycauldron: What do you think? BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mandarax: you're welcome to comment, too. BorgQueen (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The feather hook It is in the article with a reference - citation #109. It is the only quirky hook in this three proposed. The other two hooks will not be as interesting and are academic and factual. I guess to illustrate the definition of the term ALT0 is best. This might make a good quirky hook.^(?) Bruxton (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of quirky-hook-guideline for the last slot. I agree, the feather-hook is the best candidate for it. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Approve ALT0. BorgQueen (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Image

@Phlsph7 In what application were you testing the preview? In my case (Telegram), the SVG is shown. Yes the current wiki source code is hacky, but it works :) PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: I was referring to the regular preview function on the desktop version when hovering over a wikilink or in the search results. I saw you added the template "CSS image crop". It seems this solved the problem. Thanks for figuring it out! Phlsph7 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 Ah I see! You're welcome. I wish there was some real feature to make it hidden except for the preview, but I haven't been able to find it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)