Talk:David Hume/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pgallert (talk · contribs) 19:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I'll take on this review. It is a long article on an important topic. I cannot promise that I'll finish the review in 7 days, but I do promise that I'll finish the review ;) I shall start with preliminary comments - things that I find odd during first thorough reading. Not all of these comments will be GA-enforceable. If you think I'm going over the top just tell me.

I'll continue with the "official" GA review after that, using the standard template. I'll make doubly sure all my complaints are actually mapping to WP:WIAGA; don't hesitate to discuss with me if I am too strict with my requests.

After the GA review (I'll typically complain about a few things) I'll be available for up to a month to comment on improvements before the hammer falls in form of a 'fail'. The exact period of time depends on whether the nomination was fly-by-night, or whether there are actually editors reacting to my complaints. I do few GA reviews, but I do them with the aim to pass the article, however much work or time that takes. Thanks for improving Wikipedia, Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for 2009 delisting
Let's start with the obvious, the reasons for the 2009 GA-delisting. The issues mentioned there have been ironed out, particularly: --Pgallert (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * no cn tags present
 * no "ibid" in references
 * weasel words (lionised, champion) removed

First observations

 * Style: The article is peppered with quotation marks and looks cluttered. For instance, the paragraph starting It is likely that Hume was sceptical both about (Religion, second last) is hardly readable. I count 305 double quotes (still figuring out why this number is odd). They appear because of:
 * Ample use of Hume's own words. This is of course fine in general, but at certain places excessive. Some paragraphs contain almost no prose authored by Wikipedia editors, and the majority of these paragraphs could easily be written in own words. I am of course not suggesting that they be all eradicated, but maybe someone is willing to go through the article and check if they are really all necessary.
 * Unnecessary splitting of longer quotes with "Some text." Also, "Some more text". These 5 occurrences should be removed. If the quote needs to be there in its entirety, dots ([...]) are better.
 * Ample use of the words of others about Hume. Again, this is fine in general but it has been overdone. Quotes are good if they cannot easily be reworded. For simple statements of facts we should use our own narrative.
 * Notions used in a specific (often narrow) meaning, like "science of man" "impressions" "ideas" "custom" "constant conjunction" "self" (lead, 2nd and 3rd paragraph). Philosophers do that all the time. I suggest to:
 * Where these notions have their own article, linking them is sufficient. (example science of man)
 * If the narrative is about the words, italics looks better than double quotes. (example: he divides perceptions between strong and lively impressions or direct sensations and fainter ideas, which are copied from impressions)
 * Single-word citations are of course okay, as in who was officially described as a "lunatic" (Career, fourth paragraph)
 * Lead: The lead section is too long. The extraordinary claim that Hume was the first to write literary essays (5th para) is not referenced, not repeated in the article, and likely not true (cf e.g. John Locke).
 * Broadness:
 * The thoughts and works are covered extensively. However, there is very little on Hume's financial circumstances---that he lost out to his elder brother when his father died, that he took pretty much all of his jobs out of financial necessity, that the History of Great Britain finally made him a wealthy man. Also his bodily conditions---scurvy, depressions, diarrhea, are not mentioned. He never gained any university employment; German Wikipedia says he is the only important Scottish philosopher of his era to suffer this fate.
 * The Is–ought problem is actually Hume's discovery; the article does not say that. Its common phrasing 'Nothing that ought to be can be deducted from anything that is' is not mentioned, nor is its very short and lucid proof.
 * There is a gap in his biography: He was the British Charge d'Affairs in France in 1766.
 * Finally, and I think this is a result of overusing citations, his real influence and importance is somewhat hidden. If I read Bertrand Russell (History of Western Philosophy, p.612) correctly, it is: Induction cannot be founded on observations alone and has to be deducted from some general principle. This general principle can also not be logically proven, it is independent from both observation and logic, and there is no science possible without it. Thus Hume was destroying pure empiricism, quite in fashion at his time, for good. One might mention, too, that his arguments have never been refuted.
 * Structure: The subsection "Religion" should be under section "Thoughts" instead of "Career"

So much for now, will be back later. --Pgallert (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments added --Pgallert (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Too many direct quotes to have a clear and consistent style, and amounting to confusing the reader. Lead is too long.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Well-referenced to reliable sources
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Hume's health issues and his financial problems have had implications for his life in general. As this is his biography I find these topics too important to leave out. One can argue about 3b, whether the display of his philosophical thought does not go into excessive detail. From my point of view the amount of philosophical coverage is not excessive.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Hume was not personally controversial. I therefore see the overuse of direct quotes from him in 1a not as an issue of WP:DUE, just as an issue of readability.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Considering that my preliminary comments are up for 6 days the article was a bit too stable for my liking ;)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * No fair use claims, all images free to use
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There is quite a bit of rewriting and restructuring to be done but nothing that would amount to writing the article from scratch. I therefore put this GA nomination on hold and hope that somebody is coming up to do the necessary work. --Pgallert (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to GA review.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this article. I had lost heart in the entire GA system.

Although it worried you that there were no changes following your preliminary observations, I, for one, was waiting for the final review before embarking on them. This was also because I find I disagree with some of what you said there.

In detail:
 * Style
 * 1. I much prefer actual quotations rather than some editor's paraphrase, especially in what might be a difficult subject. I think they help the reader not confuse. They leave the reader in no doubt that this is what the source says. I am tired of altering articles where an editor says whatever they want, and stick on a citation that has nothing to do with what is said, or says something different.


 * 2. The use of ellipses should only be for a continuous quote with a few words missed out. In the cases you mention, there are sometimes whole pages omitted. 'Also, "xxx"' is much the best way of doing this.


 * 3. I think you have a thing against direct quotations. I like them. We may disagree as to what constitute "simple statements of facts". They could be looked at.


 * 4. These are a matter of taste. I don't think there is a WP rule about them. Certainly no reason to downgrade the review.


 * Lead
 * The length should be looked at. I missed the literary essays thing - thanks.


 * Broadness
 * No editor seems to have thought his finances or health worthy of the attention you feel they should have. Some small additions may be made.
 * Is-ought could be extended.
 * I'll look into 1766.
 * There are two, quite large sections on induction and causality. There is certainly no overuse of citations. Perhaps you meant quotations. Again I disagree.


 * Structure
 * The section to which you refer is about his personal views on religion. It is under Biography not Career. There is a short section later on his religious writings. Perhaps this should be enlarged.

GA Review
You downgrade the review on only two points.
 * 1. I think we are not going to agree on quotations. You should only downgrade the review if the article is not well written. You may be right about the length of the lead, and that can be looked at. I do not see that direct quotations detract from the clarity of the prose.
 * 3. I'll look at health and money. I do not see them as "main aspects of the topic".

I don't know about other editors.
 * I shall try to reduce the lead, but I have fallen foul of others before on this. **Done - is this enough?**
 * I shall also look at including something on his health and finances. **Done health - I can't see that it's of much importance though. Also a little on finances.**
 * I'll look into 1766. **Done - turns out to be 1765. He left France at the start of 1766.**
 * I'll also look at the is-ought section. Myrvin (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Some clarifications (response to
--Pgallert (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC) some stuff added 18:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding quotation marks: My issues are twofold:
 * There are too many of them, for whatever reason. That makes the body of text an eyesore at certain places, and I had to scan back and forth more than once to figure out whether I am within or outside quoted text.
 * The mixture of editor-supplied text and Hume's words breaks the flow of prose to a degree that I judge the article "not well written". That certainly maps directly to GA requirements. Let me give you an example (paragraph "Career", original emphasis removed, own emphasis added). In this paragraph a rather complicated construction using difficult vocabulary (in italics) is surrounded by simple, almost colloquial, English (normal text). I consider this not well written, as there are many paragraphs like that.
 * As he had spent most of his savings during his four years there while writing A Treatise of Human Nature,[9] he resolved "to make a very rigid frugality supply my deficiency of fortune, to maintain unimpaired my independency, and to regard every object as contemptible except the improvements of my talents in literature".[10] He completed the Treatise at the age of 26.
 * The "Also" between two quotes seems very weird to me, but that might be just me.
 * Regarding the structure: That's what I meant, the paragraph is under biography. It does not contain any part of his biography. Particularly as the article contains a section "Thought", his views on religion should be there.
 * Regarding the overall rating: I will probably not agree on a barter like "I don't like your point 1, so now I have one less point to improve before you must to pass the article." (Nothing sinister intended, but that's how I understood your response). We can ask for a second opinion, either on the whole GAN or just on the "well-written" part of it. If the prose remains the way it is I will likely have more complaints, for instance all the phrases below are in violation of WP:DUE unless the authors are well-known Hume experts, or at least eminent scientists. I see none of them has a Wikipedia article yet, this might be an indication that they are not. Many of these quotations might need to be incorporated in a different way.
 * Marc Hanvelt identifies...
 * David O'Connor writes...
 * John D. Kenyon writes...
 * Angela Coventry writes... Struck as per apology below --Pgallert (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason that I ask for finances and health be included it that they explain parts of his biography. As an encyclopedia we should explain things where possible, not just produce a chain of facts. For instance, why would a person like Hume tutor a lunatic? Because he had to, he was broke.
 * If I do not agree with your view on too many quotations, I had to say so. You did ask for comments. Other editors may disagree with me. I have dealt with several other of your points, and I shall also look at this one, if I think the quote is difficult, but not just because it is a quote. Am I right in thinking you only to like one word quotes?
 * You have introduced a new criticism to do with due weight. The weight of an author's views is not to be judged on whether they are recognized experts, or whether they have a WP article about them. Their weight comes from the fact that they have produced a reliable source which is relevant to the article, and that this RS is not obviously a fringe view. If we had to use RS's only from people with WP articles, we would be in a very bad way. Myrvin (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no, now we might be on a way of misunderstanding each other. Quotes are essential, they belong into the article, particularly as the subject was so lucid a writer. I just think there are too many, and I would take them out wherever the phrase could easily be incorporated in plain English, or reworded without effort.
 * Regarding the non-well-known scientists: Sorry, I should have been clearer on that: Their quote is okay, their works are RS. But that their name appears in the body of the Hume article, not just in the references, is placing an undue weight on their (O'Connor's, Kenyon's, Carpentry's) importance. The quotes can be there, just the wording "X says" should be limited to either an extreme but well-known fringe view that needs to be included, or people that are notable in their relation to Hume. This criticism is new because I assumed that some of the quotes would "go", anyway. Struck as per apology below --Pgallert (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope this clarifies your two points, sorry for not making it clear in the first place. --Pgallert (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought I'd check with other GAs, but there aren't many GAs about philosophers. Do you think that Max Weber and Alfred North Whitehead shouldn't be GAs because they have too many quotations?
 * I've never seen an editor complain about the 'Smith writes, "xxxxx"' format. I have seen editors complain that a quote (direct and indirect) doesn't say who wrote it, so it looks as if it is an accepted fact in WP's voice. I think the use of the writer's name makes it clear that this may be one person's view, but not that the idea is fringe. I don't see that the writer has to be famous in order to be included in this format. I don't find this in WP:DUE. If an editor wants to include the idea that "Hume’s final position was "weakly deistic"", surely the fact that this is O'Connor's view has to be stated, the citation isn't enough. The weasel words: "Some people think that ...." are unacceptable. WP:MOSQUOTE says "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote."
 * Other editors may have other views. I think I'll rest for a while. Myrvin (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't know the MOSQUOTE part that you put forward. I'll strike the relevant complaints and apologize. I still don't agree because that results in a writing style for secondary information sources, not tertiary, but that is of course entirely irrelevant, and I have neither the energy to change the MOS nor any hope of success. To take up your example, either it is only O'Connor that calls Hume "weakly deistic", than this is only DUE if O'Connor is important. Or, if that is an established position of many, then there is no reason to single out O'Connor in the text. Alas, MOSQUOTE says so, which make my point moot. By the way, I explain that in such detail not to torpedo your GAN but to corroborate that I believe I have a good reason rather than just arbitrary complaints.
 * The number of paragraphs using direct quotes versus those that don't is 56:25, if I counted that right. That means, more than 2/3 of the paragraphs are not primarily written in Wikipedia's voice. Indeed, that seems to be your (i.e., all article's authors') intention. I think it is a bug, you think it is a feature. I'll ask for a second opinion on that and will in the mean time (but not today, sorry) comment on the article's progress with regards to the non-contentious complaints. All the best, Pgallert (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your time. To clarify: I think you are saying that, from WP:GACR, your reason for downgrading the review under Well written, would be because you do not think "the prose is clear and concise" - because of the quotations. With this I disagree. It is likely that any quotation from an 18th century person will be surrounded by modern English. For that to be avoided, no Hume quotations could appear at all.
 * I understand that you disagree. Please also try to understand that my concern is about the amount, not about the existence, of direct quotes. --Pgallert (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As for style, an article is a GA if "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation". The criteria also says, "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles." So, I think that, even if the style guidelines did say somewhere that too many quotations were a bad thing, that would not be enough to deny GA status. Myrvin (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant here, as I contest 1a of the criteria, not 1b. The 'fail' sign on 1b was for the lead, which has been corrected. --Pgallert (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had a fair look now at the is-ought invention. I can't see that anyone says Hume invented it. Indeed Francis Hutcheson was doing the same thing. However I do have a nice quote from Britannica saying "Hume's forceful presentation of this argument against a rational basis for morality would have been enough to earn him a place in the history of ethics". Myrvin (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Another quote O_O Well, it is called Hume's Law; WP's own article on it seems to be properly referenced. This can also serve as reference for this claim. --Pgallert (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hume is definitely the most famous articulator of this - hence someone, much later, calling it Hume's Law. But I still don't see anyone claiming he was the very first to do so. Maybe I missed the quote. Read the Britannica article on it. We should put the words Hume's Law in. 08:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This says "Hume was evidently the first ...". Might be  strong enough. The author isn't famous though. Myrvin (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this was included in early versions of the first enquiry:"That faculty, by which we discern truth and falshood, and that by which we perceive vice and virtue had long been confounded with each other, and all morality was suppos'd to be built on eternal and immutable relations, which to every intelligent mind were equally invariable as any proposition concerning quantity or number. But a late philosopher (Mr. Hutcheson) has taught us, by the most convincing arguments, that morality is nothing in the abstract nature of things, but is entirely relative to the sentiment or mental taste of each particular being; in the same manner as the distinctions of sweet and bitter, hot and cold, arise from the particular feeling of each sense or organ. Moral perceptions therefore, ought not to be class'd with the operations of the understanding, but with the tastes or sentiments." Myrvin (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the long break. I wouldn't put in an unknown author's assertion if Peter Singer says there were others before and after Hume. I fiddled a bit with this paragraph (the quote related to the wrong achievement); maybe you want to check. --Pgallert (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrap up
Hi all again, I think the following issues are not yet ironed out: Thanks everyone involved for improving Wikipedia. --Pgallert (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Still impossible to understand why he would be in so desperate financial circumstances in the beginning of his career. Also still missing is that the History of Britain was the watershed in his finances.
 * 2) The religious views are still in section Career and should be moved somewhere else, preferably as introductory paragraphs to his religious writings. It is a pity that his heresy charge is only covered in one sentence which stands a bit isolated. Expanding this, though, would be homework for FA, not GA.
 * 3) On the amount of double quotes, as announced, I will put the article on status 'second opinion'.
 * Clarification: I consider points 1 and 2 necessary improvements; I would fail the article if this is not done. The second opinion is sought on the question Does this article have excessive quotes to a degree that it could be considered non--well written? --Pgallert (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The text now says "His finances as a young man were very "slender". His family was not rich and, as a younger brother, he had little patrimony[6] to live on. He was therefore forced to make a living somehow", and has done for a while.
 * These religious views are not in 'Career', but in a separate sub-section of 'Biography', which is where I think they belong. His personal views are part of his life. His actual writings are something different.
 * I would ask for any second opinion to look at these points too. Myrvin (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for a second opinion before changing anything. Myrvin (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed my mind about all this. This process has been like pulling teeth. I suggest strongly that you fail the article straightaway, and I'll put in again - or else I won't bother anymore. I am not going to change the article for your points 1 and 2, because I think they are fine, and not part of the GA guidelines. I am certainly not going to reduce the number of quotation marks. In my view, none of these points have anything to do with whether it is a good article or not, and since I'm the only one who seems to be doing any alterations because of the GA process, you might as well fail it now. If not, I'll withdraw my nomination - which I probably should have done weeks ago. Myrvin (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, like pulling teeth. I have asked for a second opinion and won't touch this review before that... To be frank, shopping around for a more accommodating reviewer in a few weeks time is not the way to go, neither is your repeated false assertion that I request things that are not part of GAC, and neither is arguing ad infinitum about every point the reviewer brings up. I made a mistake on the "XYZ claims that..." clauses, I have struck and apologised. For all other points, if by now I couldn't communicate to you that they are concerning, then I probably never will. Regards, Pgallert (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have another go at explaining myself. For your points 1 and 2: the WP:GACR criteria say the article should be:"Broad in its coverage: a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." The note for a says "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.". Again, WP:RGA says "3.The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions. The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive." Your insistence on the expansion of a small part of Hume's life - his finances - is more than is required for a GA. I note that you ignore the edit I pointed out to you. I have also added the words: "finally giving him financial independence" to the piece on the History of England.
 * Also, there is nothing about where precisely in an article particular information is put, as long as the article addresses the main aspects of the topic. I note that you still do not seem to see where exactly the information on Hume's religious views are put - not in 'Career' as you keep asserting, but in 'Biography'.
 * Nobody could read this article and think that its prose is not "clear and concise", especially given the complexity of some of its coverage. You have a great distaste for quotation marks, evidenced by your rather obsessive counting of the number of quotations per paragraph, which seems to blind you to this fact. WP:GACN says it is a mistake to review by "Imposing your own stylistic preferences", which is what I think you are doing.
 * As you say, you are not reviewing for a featured article, but for a good article.Myrvin (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have read GAC, thanks. User:Prhartcom is willing to provide the second opinion. As they also prefer to have this nomination failed and a new one started, I will now change the status to 'fail'. Hope the next round is getting better. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)