Talk:Empiricism/GA1

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

This article needs some work done to retain its good article status. Issues include:


 * Insufficient references
 * Second half of "Philosophical usage"
 * "Scientific usage"
 * First half of "Early empiricism"
 * Parts of "British empiricism"
 * Second half of "Logical empiricism"
 * First paragraph of "Integration of empiricism and rationalism"
 * Per WP:LAYOUT, move "See also" to before "Footnotes"

Please keep this page updated with the article's progress. Gary King ( talk ) 21:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is essentially the same as when it was given GA status. I'll review its content as time permits. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it doesn't change my review. That just means that I would probably disagree with the passing of this article as a good article. Please keep this page updated with the article's progress. Gary King  ( talk ) 03:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any updates on this? This has been open for over a week. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article's GA status has been reassessed. Gary King  ( talk ) 21:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the passive voice? Translated: "I, Gary King, have reassessed this article's GA status [and have unilaterally chosen to delist it]." ... Kenosis (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have chosen to delist the article because it does not meet the current good article criteria. An opportunity was given for the article to be improved, but not all of the issues were resolved. Does that help? Gary King  ( talk ) 01:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a bit more direct ("I have chosen..." ). I still find the statement "An opportunity was given..." to require a subject, such as, for instance, "An opportunity was given by me ...", or more directly, "I gave [you people] an opportunity to improve the article..." . Etc. ..... In direct response: Given noticeably dwindling participation by knowledgeable contributors on the wiki of late, I've found myself filling a few gaps elsewhere. When I'm able to get around to go through my library and add further citations, along with some other minor tightening up, I'll try to do so, assuming of course that someone else doesn't see their way clear to it first. I will also say this: This article is already quite arguably the best summary of empiricism I've seen to date, anywhere. The parts that lack inline citations are largely uncontroversial to anyone familiar with this topic. .... Kenosis (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your first paragraph, I don't understand why this needs to be made personal; I feel like you are trying to pull a confession out of me. I'm trying to make this entire discussion focused on the content; if you felt that my assessment was incorrect, this review page was open for anyone, including yourself, to challenge it.


 * In any case, it may be true that the uncited information in the article is uncontroversial to some people, but they still need citations, preferably to works written by experts of the field. And at the end of the day, the article may be submitted as a good article nomination at any time to regain that status. Gary King  ( talk ) 03:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)