Talk:Humanism/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argenti Aertheri (talk · contribs) 22:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review
Last updated at by

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written


 * 1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct


 * 1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research


 * 2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline


 * 2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)


 * 2c) it contains no original research


 * 2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage


 * 3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic


 * 3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:


 * 4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:


 * 5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
 * 6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content


 * 6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

 * "the brevity of man's life". (80B4 DK)[17] Socrates spoke of" - What's with the stray "(80B4 DK)"? Move to citation maybe?
 * It is a form of citation of ancient texts. It is widely used, see for example here. But you are right, I will move it to citation.
 * Changed
 * "While there is a widely-held belief that the birth of humanism was solely a European affair" = weasel
 * I do not feel it is weasel, because according to source: In western genealogies, one popular starting point for the birth of Humanism is the Renaissance. Supposedly, Europe awoke from its medieval slumber and rediscovered classical knowledge, in particular the Ancient Greeks, which again placed Man as a dynamic agent at the center of the universe. and I believe this opinion is widely shared. It is not a controversial opinion. In any case, would you feel that if I move the attribution to the beginning of the sentence, would that be more appropriate?
 * Reworded
 * "He gives as example the paradigm of Africa" - the what?
 * I have some rewording to do here...(I will do it by Sunday)
 * Is this better? I believe the paradigm is explained now by the second half of the sentence.
 * "This was intended to be an atheist cult" - cult is a strong statement and needs either a direct quotation or an in text attribution (i.e. According to so-and-so this was...)
 * You are probably right. Changed.
 * "Instead of a universal ethic code, Kant suggested a universal procedure that shapes the ethics that differ among groups of people.[66][failed verification]" - this absolutely must be fixed. I think this is probably the right SEP page.
 * Silly mistake. Fixed.

That citation must be fixed before this can pass GA.


 * "If goodness is independent from God, humans can reach goodness without religion but relativism is invited if God creates goodness." - choosing a different verb here would make this much easier to understand.
 * I used the word "elicited". Maybe "introduced" is a better word choice?
 * "does God command something because it is good or is something good because God commands it?" - Direct quotes require direct citations
 * fixed
 * "Humanism was associated with prominent thinkers who rationally advocated against the existence of God." - I know you mean rationality as a philosophical concept, you know that's what you mean, but what that says is "they logically/sensibly/obviously advocated against the existence of God"
 * Is this any better? (Humanism was linked with prominent thinkers who advocated against the existence of God using rationalistic arguments)
 * "Copson sees elements of religion, such as belief, practice, identity and culture, in which a person adhering to few religious doctrines could also be humanist." - that's not a sentence
 * Correct, fixed.
 * "Other critics say humanism is an oppressive philosophy because it is not free from the biases of the white, heterosexual males who shaped it." - which other critics?
 * Explained
 * "After the atrocities of World War II" - should atrocities be in wikivoice? I'm not sure if that runs afoul of 1b, or is just a fact.
 * I am not a great fun of wikivoice, but I believe in such cases, it is useful. I mean, there is almost universal consensus that during WWII, atrocities have been committed.
 * You moved (80B4 DK) to the citation (thank you), but you're now defining "FOOTNOTELaw2011chapter History of Humanism, #Ancient Greece" twice.
 * It does not appear in my browser. Has anybody fixed that?

Sorry about just leaving that marked as a weasel before, I must've missed that one when turning my notes into a review. Everything looks okay enough, but those citations have to be fixed before the minor copy edit issues matter. I'm going to put the GA nomination on hold for the week to give you time to track down that failed verification. ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 05:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will try to sort this by the end of the weekend. Cinadon36 21:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, ping me when you're ready ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 00:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How does it look now ? Cheers, Cinadon36 21:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good except it's still not clear to me what the paradigm of Africa actually is. Maybe a wikilink? ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 22:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm, there is no wikilink to that. I am inclined to removing the sentence, it is not that significant. Would that be ok? Cinadon36 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Argenti Aertheri hm, it looks better now, in my opinion. Cinadon36 22:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 22:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)