Wikipedia:Peer review/Anaximander/archive1

Anaximander[edit]

Since I helped a lot in writing the French article (a featured article), I thought I'd give a hand with its English counterpart. I think my English is fine, however I need someone to check the body of the article for syntax, grammar, style conventions, or any typo that might have remained. (Didyaknow, after 2 zillions hours spent on a page, it totally disappears???) Don't mind the Known works and References section, I will deal with them shortly. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 10:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit[edit]

This is quite a good article, but I would say that, overall, the article is very abstract and needs to define its terms more often and explain Anaximander's ideas, when possible, using modern terminology.

If you want this to reach FA, I would expand the lead to 2-3 fuller paragraphs. It should reflect the shape of the entire article WP:LEAD. Also, I would delete the moon reference - is that really one of the most significant facts about Anaximander?

Done. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify all sources that you name in the main body of the text for the general reader. Alas, not everyone knows who Themistius is, for example.

Done. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Themistius mentions that Anaximander was the "first of the known Greeks to publish a written document on nature" and by this very fact, his texts would be amongst the earliest written in prose. - you mean, first amongst the Greeks?

In the Western world. Fixed. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Biography" section seems a little choppy. I know that there is very little information on Anaximander, but is it possible to make it flow a litle better?

Done. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you are aiming for FA, I think that you need more references, particularly secondary references.

An exhaustive list is given in the external links. But I have not read them. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Anaximander, the principle of things is nothing determined, no more than it is one of the elements, as Thales suggests. - this sentence is unclear

Clarified. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for making the quote bold and big in "The apeiron" section.

Done.

The first paragraph of the "Cosmology" section is unclear. For example, what does It confirms an early effort in the demythification of the genealogical process mean?

Clarified. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was also the first to present a system where the celestial bodies turned at different distances. - unclear - do you mean the first system that postulated both rotating bodies and bodies at different distances?

The pictures talk for themselves. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mere idea of representing the Earth simply for the sake of knowledge justifies the process. - what process?

Rephrased.Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Russell in The History of Western Philosophy interprets the above quote as an assertion of the necessity of an appropriate balance between earth, fire, and water elements, all of which may be independently seeking to aggrandize their proportions relative to the others. - this is confusing - what quote?
Martin Heidegger was known to have lectured extensively on Anaximander (along with Parmenides and Heraclitus) and wrote a section in Off the Beaten Track called "Anaximander's Saying" in which he examines the ontological difference and the oblivion of Being or Dasein in the pre-Platonics. - could you say more about this?
I did some copyediting as I was reading the text but I would suggest that you have the League of Copyeditors take a quick look at this article as well. Even better, someone who knows something about Greek philosophy. I was reluctant to change some things because of my lack of knowledge of Greek philosophy. Awadewit 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fantastic automation, by the way! All points were taken into account. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]