Talk:Freud and Philosophy/GA2

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 20:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I will perform the review of this interesting article. My approach is to review each section and provide suggestions where I think they are helpful. If I find opportunities for minor edits, like links, capitalization, punctuation, I find it is faster and easier for both of us if I make the changes and provide a diff for you to review to ensure you agree. Then, I assess the article against the GA criteria.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that there was a Talk:Freud and Philosophy/GA1 review a few months ago, with a lot of work on the article since then. Good job.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * For future reference, the reason for the fail is most succinctly discussed in the General comments section, and in a bit more detail in Response from Freeknowledgecreator. Before renominating the article, it would be helpful to consider the good-faith suggestions, but more particularly to be open to an editor who have different viewpoints... or perhaps ask the editor from the GA1 attempt to perform the review and renominate the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have renominated it immediately since I consider your review totally unfair - and have every right to. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course you do. My instructions for failing the article were to state what I thought needed to be done for a successful review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Introduction and infobox
This is a very good and thorough introduction. I just have two areas where I think there could be clarification:
 * I am not understanding "to which it leads" in
 * I am also not understanding particularly from "but as an 'interpretation'"... and how psychoanalysts should have done things differently.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Most people would not experience any difficulty in understanding "the understanding of human nature to which it leads". It is a perfectly clear statement. It refers to the understanding of human nature that a given body of ideas suggests. Someone who can understand normal English can understand that statement. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Summary
Heading only.

Preface

 * Could you edit so that it is a little clearer?
 * There is no reason why I should because it is a clear statement and you have done literally nothing to suggest otherwise. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding, how about something like "Freud and Philosophy is structured into Book I, the "Problematic"; Book II, the "Analytic"; and Book III, the "Dialectic"."?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed it instead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Book I: Problematic: The Placing of Freud

 * is a wordy start to a long sentence. Perhaps something like "Ricœur found that Freud emphasized the importance of language shared by philosophers..." (or emphasised).
 * I am not sure if it is an American thing or not, but the rest of the sentence looks to me like it would benefit from a semicolon or dash like "such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger, schools of philosophy, such as phenomenology, a movement founded by Edmund Husserl, and English linguistic philosophy—as well as disciplines such as New Testament exegesis, comparative religion, anthropology, and psychoanalysis."
 * You criticize the punctuation of the sentence that includes "such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger". The punctuation of that sentence is fine the way it is in my view. I don't see any reason why adding a "—" instead of a "," would be an improvement. On the other hand, I don't believe a "—" would actually make the sentence worse, so I will make the change, since you consider it desirable. <<< Response 9. from Freeknowledgecreator >>>


 * Who is "He" in ? Freud? Ricœur?


 * You ask, of the sentence, "In his view, the primary difference is that phenomena that psychoanalysis views as distorted", what "his view" refers to. It refers to Ricœur's view. I see absolutely no reason at all why that would be unclear.<<< Response 10. from Freeknowledgecreator >>>


 * Regarding where there is a point within a point ("including both..." and "involve..."). I wonder if the sentence would be clearer without "including both insanity and human culture in general," since it applies to people generally and those who are insane (i.e., I infer that it applies to all people).


 * You criticize the sentence, 'According to Ricœur, dreams and phenomena comparable to them, including both insanity and human culture in general, involve "significations where another meaning is both given and hidden in an immediate meaning", which he equates with the symbol.' You suggest that it might be clearer without "both insanity and human culture in general". I see no reason whatever why removing that part of the sentence would make it clearer. Forgive me, but it is your criticism of the sentence ("since it applies to people generally and those who are insane") that from my point of view is uncear. I don't understand your point.<<< Response 11. from Freeknowledgecreator >>>


 * My point is, if you think in terms of mathematical sets of population and you have a population of the insane and you have a population of all people, the set of insane people is within the population of all people. So, the point relates to all people. If there is a special point that needs to be made about insane people, perhaps something like –CaroleHenson (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is not trying to make a "special point" about "insane people". It is trying to explain Ricœur's ideas in Freud and Philosophy. Insane people are not the topic of the book. That "insane people is within the population of all people" is not relevant. Insanity and human culture in general are distinguishable phenomena, and it does not follow at all that because someone makes a point about "human culture" he is also making a point about "insane people". As with some other changes you have suggested, your proposed change would not be improvement in the slightest. In fact it would degrade the quality of the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , I was just offering another option since you were against removing "including both insanity and human culture in general," I was trying to work with you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but you were criticizing a passage of the article that really has nothing wrong with it. The change that you suggested I make is peculiar, and unnecessary, and would not even be accurate. Ricœur's point has nothing at all to do with the relative mental health of normal versus insane people. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding Who is "his"? Is this meant to be a general / always true statement? Perhaps it depends upon how "distorted reflections of basic desires" is defined... and how "the revelation of the sacred" is defined across religions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You criticize the sentence, "In his view, the primary difference is that phenomena that psychoanalysis views as distorted reflections of basic desires are regarded by the phenomenology of religion as "the revelation of the sacred". You ask, "Is this meant to be a general / always true statement?" What is the point of the criticism? The sentence notes that according to Ricœur psychoanalysis views particular phenomena in a particular way. Nothing in it suggests that according to Ricœur psychoanalysis only sometimes, rather than always, views those phenomena that way. You do not seem to be raising an important point here.<<< Response 12. from Freeknowledgecreator >>>


 * Since we actually have two viewpoints, the author and Freud, I doubt I would be the only one that would wonder whose viewpoint is being addressed.


 * Regarding the second part, it seems like an over-generalization of world religions. I will see if I can find the exact passage in the sources for this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading the two cited pages helped a lot. I think that "distorted reflections of basic desires are regarded by the phenomenology of religion" should be reworded unless you have other page numbers that specifically relate this paradigm to religion. It seems to me that pages 7 and 8 explain that are the many ways that we create symbols of our true or double meanings, whether through dreams, spoken words, or any number of ways.


 * And, part of this will get to how many readers would you like to understand this article? I generally go for a fifth-grade reading level to capture children into their teens, people for whom English is not their first language, and people not familiar with the fields of psychoanalysis, philosophy, etc. That is my personal approach for accessibility.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It should be perfectly clear that the statement in question is discussing how Ricœur assesses psychoanalysis. I do not agree that an article about Freud and Philosophy either could or should be written at a "fifth-grade reading level". Trying to write an article for ten-year olds is unfair to adults who might be interested in it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Book II: Analytic: Reading of Freud

 * seems a bit wordy and awkward. How about something like "The second section covers Freud's interpretation of psychoanalysis and how Ricœur compares them to other clinicians' perspectives".
 * You criticize the sentence beginning, "Ricœur explains that the second section of the book is called an...", describing it as "awkward". Although I have not adopted your proposed change (which I think would be seriously misleading at best) I have cut the sentence back. Some details there were definitely dispensable. <<< Response 13. from Freeknowledgecreator >>>
 * That edit looks good, and is ✅–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding "an" and "a" does not seem correct before energetics and hermeneutics and I am not understanding why the words are in quotes - you don't need to put the words in quotes after the first instance. (I personally wouldn't have the words in quotes at all.) Could you check that both words are only in quotes for the first instance?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You criticize the sentence, "He argues that psychoanalysis can be understood as both an "energetics", in that it entails "an explanation of psychical phenomena through conflicts of forces", and a "hermeneutics", in that it entails an "exegesis of apparent meaning through a latent meaning"". You ask why "energetics" and "hermeneutics" are in quotes. They are in quotes because they are technical terms that will probably be unfamiliar to most readers. Energetics is a recognized subject and even has a Wikipedia article about it, but Ricœur's use of the term "energetics" does not necessarily correspond to the standard meaning of the term in English; he is a philosopher and not a scientist. As for "an" being incorrect before "energetics", why, exactly, would it be incorrect, and what alternative would be correct in your view? Same question applies to the "a" before "hermeneutics". Why would it be incorrect, and how should the passage read instead in your view? <<< Response 14. from Freeknowledgecreator >>>
 * My suggestion is that it would read better as . I won't repeat myself re: why. I can see that you would want quotes in the intro for energetics and hermeneutics. You may want a note there to describe that these terms are based upon "Ricœur's use of the terms".–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

General comments
To keep a sense of proportion, I'll note that your criticisms of the article are quite different from those of the previous reviewer, who did not appear to see any problem with the passages you suggest are unclear. In several cases I think the statements in the article that you criticize as unclear are reasonably clear. Other statements that you have criticized as unclear are not so much unclear as they are incomplete. They are only meant to be introductory in nature. I also think that some of your criticisms of the article fail to identify significant problems. I have adopted your proposals for changing the article in a couple of cases. I have also trimmed the article back somewhat. However, I still think some of your suggested changes would remove article content without any reason that seems convincing. <<< Response 15. from Freeknowledgecreator >>>


 * I addressed this a bit in the Response from Freeknowledge creator, but more directly to this point:


 * 1) I don't see where I have asked you to remove content, except perhaps a word or two for clarity and brevity. I don't think this article needs to be pruned, just tweaked.
 * 2) "Reasonably clear" is not a goal of mine. I am guessing that on the continuum of GA reviewers there are some that may go for "reasonably clear" that's not me.
 * 3) Again, I am very detail-oriented and seek to make the article the best it can be and to be accessible to many of Wikipedia's readers.


 * If "reasonably clear" is ok with you... and you aren't interested in how many people understand this article, I am not the editor for you.


 * I know it can be painful and tedious, I have been on both sides, like a recent review of my article Talk:Mary Beth Edelson/GA1.


 * I have tackled some of your issues above, let's see how you respond to some of them and if it seems we can attain some common ground, I am happy to continue. I hope, though, that your future comments will be more inline with seeking to understand one another, rather than continually expressing that I am not helping to further the article. I will meet you half-way or more, but I would really appreciate more civil responses to someone who is trying to help you out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Reasonably clear" can be considered a euphemism. I think that some material you have criticized as unclear is clear. You are free to reject it as unclear if you wish. That does not mean either that I agree with your verdict or that another reviewer would necessarily agree with it either. The previous reviewer did not make the same criticisms of the article you made. I do indeed think that some of your criticisms are simply wrong. If you believe that the supposedly unclear material should be made clear, then you are quite free to state what would, in your opinion, be clear. If you cannot explain what a clear discussion of the book would even look like, why ask me to produce one? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What? You asked me to provide sample version in one case... and I did. Everytime I have made a suggestion I have stated potential wording. There's one case where your summary did not reflect what was on two pages of the book and I asked you to 1) take a second attempt or 2) provide a page number - because I am not finding the content. And, I summarized what I understood to be covered on those two pages. If you cannot do that, that's a problem.


 * I am going to fail this review. I am not understanding what the point would be to continue this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fail it if you like. You have not provided a fair or even competent review, as witness the fact that you proposed wordings that would be outright factually inaccurate. You apparently being unable to understand simple statements is not the same as you showing that they are genuinely unclear. As for "There's one case where your summary did not reflect what was on two pages of the book", I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry. Which case are you talking about? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked for assistance out of an abundance of conscientiousness and somehow that makes you think that I am incompetent. That is not what I said and I stand by my suggestions and comments. I think you are too upset to even take in good faith suggestions. I can see that a bit because this is your second time through a GA review and you thought fixing that person's edits would solve the problem. I am not hearing, though, that he/she reviewed the article after you made the edits and had zero issues now.


 * For the two pages, do a Control-F on "world religion". It's right under that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not suggest that your review is incompetent because you asked for a second opinion. Asking for a second opinion was perfectly sensible. I suggest that your review is incompetent because you have shown a failure to understand perfectly simple statements in the article, wrongly called them unclear, and suggested that I make changes that would simply be factually wrong. All of which I say in a spirit of honesty and not to be mean. The problem is not that I am "too upset to even take in good faith suggestions"; the problem is that your suggestions are useless or objectively mistaken. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop, there is no purpose to this and it is just a continuation of uncivil behavior. I posted a message on your talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are free to give the article an unfair review. I am free to call it unfair, and explain why. I am doing so. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for second opinion
I am requesting a second opinion because I have realized that it would be best to have input from a subject matter expert.
 * My request is to please: review the points I have made so far and see if you agree with them.
 * If I am missing major points—and should withdraw as the reviewer.

I will pause right now while awaiting some feedback. To be clear, I am happy to continue to work on the article, as long as I will be "doing no harm" and am suggesting proper improvements. It's a very interesting article!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Response from Freeknowledgecreator
Hello, CaroleHenson. Thank you for your review. I will consider your comments and get back to you in the very near future. Regarding the previous review, I should say that although I definitely had disagreements with the editor who conducted it, I think that many of his criticisms of the article (as it was written at that time) had merit, and that I certainly took them into account in the changes I later made to the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. I assume you saw my comment above about ensuring that I am on the right track. I am happy to keep reviewing the article, I just want to ensure that I'm not missing anything. I have had more than 4 years of philosophy, psychology, and world religion - and find this article interesting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not responding more quickly. I am having to deal with a simultaneous good article review. I will give a more detail response soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine. No one is weighing in on my request, so I am going to finish the review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Some of your criticisms relate to the comprehensibility of the material. This is not very surprising. Freud and Philosophy is a lengthy and technical work of philosophy. I have tried to summarize its contents as simply and as clearly as I can, but an article about a book of this nature is always going to be relatively challenging to readers.


 * 2. One criticism relates to "the understanding of human nature to which it leads". I would have thought this was perfectly clear, in context. "He addresses questions such as the nature of interpretation in psychoanalysis, the understanding of human nature to which it leads..." The implication is that psychoanalysis points toward a particular view of human nature, and Ricœur discusses just what view that is. If you can suggest a way of making that clearer please do.


 * 3. Another criticism relates to the sentence that begins, "In response to criticism of the scientific status of psychoanalysis..." Yes, that sentence is rather a mouthful. However, I am again not sure how else I could or should have written it, or what might constitute an improvement. It is an effort at explaining the following facts: philosophers, including but not limited to Ernest Nagel, have criticized the idea that psychoanalysis is scientific, and Ricœur attempts to address that criticism, by arguing that, rather than understanding psychoanalysis as an observational science, it should instead be understood as, 'an "interpretation" that resembles history rather than psychology'. I suppose the biggest problem there relates to the comprehensibility of, 'an "interpretation" that resembles history rather than psychology'. It may seem vague, and it certainly does not amount to a full account of Ricœur's ideas. But it does convey them accurately as far as it goes: psychoanalysis is a way of interpreting things, and it is a form of interpretation that resembles history and not psychology. How else should I have tried to explain that? The description of Ricœur's ideas in the lead is only meant as a brief summary. Readers have the rest of the article to explain things in greater detail if they want a more detailed description.


 * 4. The next criticized sentence is the one that begins, "He criticizes psychoanalysts for failing to adopt this as their response to arguments that psychoanalysis is unscientific". Again I would have hoped that this was reasonably clear in context. It is trying to convey that, in Ricœur's opinion, psychoanalysts should have responded to arguments that psychoanalysis is unscientific by making the case that psychoanalysis is a way of interpreting things that resembles history and not psychology, but that they have unfortunately failed to do so. How else should I have written that sentence to convey those facts?


 * 5. You suggest that the sentence, "He identifies his main purposes as explaining the nature and purpose of interpretation in psychoanalysis, showing to what understanding of human nature psychoanalytic interpretation leads, and exploring whether or how Freud's interpretation of culture is compatible with other interpretations" should be made clearer. I am not sure what if anything about the sentence is actually unclear, though perhaps it does seem too long.


 * 6. You suggest that the sentence starting, "He explains the structure of Freud and Philosophy..." should be rewritten. I have instead removed it completely. On reconsideration it is superfluous. That Freud and Philosophy is organized into three books is clear without that sentence.


 * 7. You suggest that the sentence that begins, "Ricœur relates his discussion of Freud to the emphasis on the importance of language shared by philosophers" should instead begin with "Ricœur found that Freud emphasized the importance of language shared by philosophers..." I cannot make that change, because that would alter the meaning of the sentence, from something accurate to something inaccurate. If the sentence seems too long, suggest how I could break it up.


 * 8. You ask whether the "he" in "He argues that there is a need for a "comprehensive philosophy of language" ' refers to Freud or to Ricœur. It refers to Ricœur. In context, I would have thought that was clear, but I will nevertheless change "He" to "Ricœur".


 * 9. You criticize the punctuation of the sentence that includes "such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger". The punctuation of that sentence is fine the way it is in my view. I don't see any reason why adding a "—" instead of a "," would be an improvement. On the other hand, I don't believe a "—" would actually make the sentence worse, so I will make the change, since you consider it desirable.


 * 10. You ask, of the sentence, "In his view, the primary difference is that phenomena that psychoanalysis views as distorted", what "his view" refers to. It refers to Ricœur's view. I see absolutely no reason at all why that would be unclear.


 * 11. You criticize the sentence, 'According to Ricœur, dreams and phenomena comparable to them, including both insanity and human culture in general, involve "significations where another meaning is both given and hidden in an immediate meaning", which he equates with the symbol.' You suggest that it might be clearer without "both insanity and human culture in general". I see no reason whatever why removing that part of the sentence would make it clearer. Forgive me, but it is your criticism of the sentence ("since it applies to people generally and those who are insane") that from my point of view is uncear. I don't understand your point.


 * 12. You criticize the sentence, "In his view, the primary difference is that phenomena that psychoanalysis views as distorted reflections of basic desires are regarded by the phenomenology of religion as "the revelation of the sacred". You ask, "Is this meant to be a general / always true statement?" What is the point of the criticism? The sentence notes that according to Ricœur psychoanalysis views particular phenomena in a particular way. Nothing in it suggests that according to Ricœur psychoanalysis only sometimes, rather than always, views those phenomena that way. You do not seem to be raising an important point here.


 * 13. You criticize the sentence beginning, "Ricœur explains that the second section of the book is called an...", describing it as "awkward". Although I have not adopted your proposed change (which I think would be seriously misleading at best) I have cut the sentence back. Some details there were definitely dispensable.


 * 14. You criticize the sentence, "He argues that psychoanalysis can be understood as both an "energetics", in that it entails "an explanation of psychical phenomena through conflicts of forces", and a "hermeneutics", in that it entails an "exegesis of apparent meaning through a latent meaning"". You ask why "energetics" and "hermeneutics" are in quotes. They are in quotes because they are technical terms that will probably be unfamiliar to most readers. Energetics is a recognized subject and even has a Wikipedia article about it, but Ricœur's use of the term "energetics" does not necessarily correspond to the standard meaning of the term in English; he is a philosopher and not a scientist. As for "an" being incorrect before "energetics", why, exactly, would it be incorrect, and what alternative would be correct in your view? Same question applies to the "a" before "hermeneutics". Why would it be incorrect, and how should the passage read instead in your view?


 * 15. To keep a sense of proportion, I'll note that your criticisms of the article are quite different from those of the previous reviewer, who did not appear to see any problem with the passages you suggest are unclear. In several cases I think the statements in the article that you criticize as unclear are reasonably clear. Other statements that you have criticized as unclear are not so much unclear as they are incomplete. They are only meant to be introductory in nature. I also think that some of your criticisms of the article fail to identify significant problems. I have adopted your proposals for changing the article in a couple of cases. I have also trimmed the article back somewhat. However, I still think some of your suggested changes would remove article content without any reason that seems convincing. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , I am not sure what to make of all your comments. It would seem that you would like another reviewer. There is no question that the book is complex... and it's my goal to make it so that a wide group of readers will understand it. Because of that, my reviews are very detailed and could also be called nit-picky.


 * It bothers me that you keep saying that "you criticize" or "your criticisms". I am here to do a review. I am here to suggest ways to improve the article. I had hoped that 1) someone would weigh in about the most complex issues and/or 2) we would be able to work through them together.


 * Am I right to assume that your reactions are telling me that is not possible and you would prefer another review? If so, I can fail this nomination (per Good_article_nominations/Instructions, and you can re-nominate it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, CaroleHenson. Whether you review the article or not is your choice. There is no reason not to ask for a second opinion if you want one. Maybe it will take time before anyone provides a second opinion, but hopefully we can both be patient. Also, it does not bother me that you would criticize the article. Obviously, you are meant to do that, as a reviewer. However, I don't have to automatically agree with criticisms; I can certainly say that I think they are unfair. If you want to discuss the specific numbered points above, that's fine. We can discuss them and try to reach agreement. However, if on the other hand, you want to (unfairly) fail the article right now I would not be overly bothered. I will nominate it again. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but you do not seem to be showing that you want to work with me and call my suggestions criticisms. You also didn't respond, as usual, under the comments so that there is a thread of each point. Another indication that you don't seem to want to work with me on the article. I have never had anything even close to your response.


 * It seems like you want someone less detail-oriented, and I have no problem with that. I am having a hard time seeing that you are open to a review by me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If, though, you could respond to each point above where I am doing the review (rather than this numbered list), that would go a long way to working together.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously you are criticizing the article. I already said I had no problem with that. Criticize it and make whatever suggestions you like. I don't have a problem with it. I am not sure why the precise location in the article where I make my response is the crucial issue. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Trying to resolve issues thoughout a series of lists will be complicated - particularly because of the number of issues you have raised. It is far better, and the standard approach, to tackle them one-by-one (See Talk:Downtown Ossining Historic District/GA1 or Talk:Portrait of a Musician/GA1) with each item in one place. Then, when it's closed out, it is clear what the outcome is.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want me to repeat all my points in the section above, underneath each of your original comments, I will. Please indicate whether you want me to do this. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would like me to continue with the review, yes. I am happy to split the list with you and I'll do 9 through 15.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment
Freeknowledgecreator I do think it would be worth reflecting on how you interact with GA reviewers, this is the second time round you have ended up in conflict with the reviewer, which in my opinion is not a good look. Judging from the replies at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations, it is not not just me thinking that. Mujinga (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mujinga, the review is over, and, respectfully, you should not have commented here. You might want to remove this exchange and talk to me on my talk page, if you wish. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)