Talk:Logic translation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dylnuge (talk · contribs) 20:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm picking up this review as part of the August GAN backlog drive! I look forward to reading and reviewing the article. I like to leave comments and questions as I go through the process. Feel free at any time to respond to these, though if you prefer you can also wait until I finish reviewing and address everything at once. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for reviewing this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope I managed to address all the main concerns so far. Please let me know if further issues catch your eye. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Things are looking good so far, thanks for your prompt replies here! Apologies for my delays here; I want to be sure I'm giving this a thorough review and my complete attention, and unfortunately my weekend was a little hectic. I've added some more comments today and I should be able to devote substantial time to completing this review tomorrow. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 22:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult topic so please take the time you need. I did not mean to be pushy. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you're not being pushy at all! I had genuinely hoped to get through this over the weekend :D Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 17:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Initial comments: No copyvio issues and sources are clearly cited through the article. Images exist, are properly captioned, are relevant and useful to the subject of the article. Article contents is stable. The article is lengthy (prosesize 8348 words/34 kB @), but I didn't spot glaring concerns with respect to its broadness and focus; specific improvements here can be addressed in detailed review. Prose looks generally solid; improvements to ensure the article is accessible to a general audience can again go in detailed review. There's an independent criticism section, which can be a neutrality issue, but again in first pass nothing stands out as a serious issue and we can address any problems in detailed criticism. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments
 * "Natural language formalization" redirects here and is mentioned as a secondary term for the topic in the second sentence. I think it makes sense to put in bold as an alternative name, though I realize it doesn't cover translation between two systems of logic (like modal into first-order); your call here.
 * Good point, it makes sense since it is a redirect. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead is generally good and I think that it reads in a way that is accessible to non-experts (slight disclosure that I have a CS and math background; I'm not an expert but I do have knowledge on formal logic in a way a "pure" average reader might not, and my comments might need to be taken with a grain of salt). There are a few examples which feel a bit intensive for someone without any background in logic; the modal logic translation stands out here. I also wonder if it would be worthwhile, when first introducing the notation, to mention the basic meanings of the "for each", "for all", conjunction, disjunction, implication, and negation operators. That might be more in scope for the First-order logic page—in which case it's also out of scope for the GA—but it seems to me like there's no clear way in either article for someone to quickly learn the syntax.
 * I replace the specific example with a more general example to make it less difficult for non-experts. I tried to explain the basic symbols in the section "Basic concepts". For readers without a background in logic, it would make most sense to have this as first section in order to address the problem you mention. However, I feel that overall it's better to start with the section "Definition" and have the section "Basic concepts" right afterward. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the new language here, and I agree that the organization is reasonable overall. Maybe a footnote on the example in the lead, e.g. . The image alongside the lead already does this, so it's not crucial, but I think it might help make readers who get "scared off" by mathematical notation feel comfortable.
 * The explanatory footnote is a good idea. I reformulated it so that we don't confusing readers by providing two different translations for the same formula.
 * There are several sentences in the lead that might be better phrased less formally and more colloquially. For instance, the third paragraph begins "Criteria of adequacy specify whether a logic translation is accurate and how to distinguish good from bad translations". This might be better phrased as, e.g. "A major challenge in logic translation is determining accuracy and separating good translations from bad ones. The technical term for this is criteria of adequacy. My interpretation of WP:EXPLAINLEAD is that the lead section especially should be a broad description of the topic suitable for a general audience.
 * You are right that this is a key point, especially for an abstract topic like logic translations. I slightly modified your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On the same note as above, links to other logic topics can help, but if things can be explained in a way that doesn't require understanding the contents of the linked articles that's ideal. I recognize that's challenge since logic translation clearly requires an understanding of logic, but at the same time it's clearly an important topic and I think it'd benefit from having a lead someone can read without being familiar with, e.g., the formalism of the term "text".
 * I added a few more wikilinks to the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Overall I noticed a number of paragraphs that have sentences of the form "Some theorists argue A. However, some theorists argue B." or similar phrasing. "Some theorists" in this case is a bit of a weasel word. Ideally these sentences would make it clear to the reader how widespread the definition or claim is; for instance, how common is it for researchers to reject the idea that logic formalization is a form of translation? It seems like the term "logic formalization" has been on the rise in literature in the last 20 years, though that might just be because it's a common term in electrical engineering and computer science.
 * I tried to give a few more examples of who they are. One problem here is that the authors frequently talk about views that are not their own. Often they do not attribute this claim to a specific individual or make quantitative claims about how common this view is. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, and attribution isn't the only possible fix here. For instance, if sources are stating that one theory is particularly widespread in its usage and another is not, that would be worth mentioning to give a sense of clarity. I realize that this being a math topic some of the answer will be just that there's different definitions used in different fields, and similarly it could be useful to explain the context by describing what types of literature it most frequently appears in.
 * (Optional) Also with the above structure, saying "however" (or "in contrast", etc) is probably unneeded in most of these cases; your writing is good and the reader should be able to identify the contrast without explicitly having their attention called to it. Not a huge issue, but I do think dropping that language would read more clearly in many cases.
 * I got rid of a few "howevers". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (Optional) A logic translation is a translation of a text into a logical system. — A bit of a tautology, though maybe not an issue since both translation and logical system are linked, and translation is expanded on in the second paragraph. Your call if this should be reworded.
 * The topic is difficulty so having a few rather simple sentences may be helpful, even if they are not very informative. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Overall I like the use of short sentences; I think it's an easy trap to fall into on a complex subject to explain too much at once, and this article avoids that elegantly. There are a few cases where it feels abrupt though, like where a concept is introduced by name before being immediately defined (e.g. ), or where several short sentences are used together in a row (see the first example in the note below). This isn't a major issue, just something to keep an eye out for.
 * I merged a few shorter sentences together. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like a decent bit of the coverage in "Basic concepts" is about formal logic. It might benefit from being given a "See also" to an appropriate section of Logic (which I see you also wrote, very nice!) and having some of the more extensive descriptions of formal logic edited down to the essentials for translation. For instance, in the first paragraph the article says Logic as a discipline is the study of correct reasoning. Reasoning happens in the form of inferences or arguments. An argument is a set of premises together with a conclusion., and in the second paragraph it says A logical system is a theoretical framework for assessing which arguments are valid. Logical systems differ from each other concerning the formal language and the rules of inference they use.. These are related and could possibly be combined.
 * I shortened these passages. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I notice a lot of sentences are supported by multiple citations (often two, sometimes three). There are definitely places where this makes sense (like when listing the various fields that use natural language formalizations), but I'm wondering if there are places where this is citation overkill. I haven't had a chance to dig deep into sources yet, so this is just a formatting question—if multiple sources are all saying similar things, it might make sense to just cite one of them.
 * One problem here is that the expected standards of verifiability vary a lot from one reviewer to the other. Some reviewers only expect that the main claims are sourced. Others want a source for every single detail, including exact references for uncontroversial examples. If you belong to the first group then it may feel like too much. I usually try to err on the side of caution. I normally follow WP:BUNDLING if there are more than 3 references but it would also be possible to bundle lower numbers if this is an issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's entirely fair (and there's definitely some inconsistency in the GA review process). To be clear, I don't think the citations here are a GA-impacting issue, and I agree that "too many" citations is far less of an issue than missing citations. I'll raise any issues I find during spot checking, but I trust your judgement on what is appropriate to cite here over my own.
 * Wanted to highlight again that I really like your selection of examples in "Natural language formalization" and throughout the article; I think they're clear and do a good job illustrating the topic.
 * Thanks. Reviews usually focus more on what needs to change but learning what things to continue is also helpful.
 * Overall the "Types" section looks good; as the longest single section of the article I think it's clearly organized and well-focused, and I don't see any major changes needed from a broadness or focus perspective.
 * With their help, programs like Prolog can be used to solve problems — I don't think it's entirely clear what "their" refers to in this sentence. I believe it's translations between different logic systems, but I'm not 100% sure and didn't want to change it without checking.
 * I've spelled it out and expanded the explanation.
 * The lead describes criteria of adequacy but the section calls it criteria of adequate translations. I realize these mean the same thing, but it might make sense to use consistent terminology.
 * I think both terms are used but you are right that the article should be consistent so adjusted the terminology accordingly
 * Also regarding the lead's third paragraph, I think it might be worth mentioning the idea that logic translation can be seen as an intuitive practice that can't be given formal rules; it's interesting and I think fits as part of a summary of the "Criteria of adequate translations" section.
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the criticism sections, there are statements like "For these reasons, it is often controversial whether a logic translation is correct". If possible, it would be nice to give the reader a sense of how widespread this criticism is. My understanding from reading the entire article is that logic translation is a widely accepted practice used in many fields despite differing opinions on both how and where to apply it. I don't get that same sense just from reading the criticism section. I do think due weight on criticisms is appropriately placed into all the rest of the article, so this isn't the biggest issue, but readers do sometimes focus on specific sections of articles.
 * I think you got a point here. I tried to soften the corresponding sontences since "often" and "frequently" may overstate the issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Source Review
 * ✅ Source reliability looks generally good. Cited sources include textbooks from reliable academic publishers (e.g. Springer, Cambridge University Press, Wiley) that appear to be widely used within education, especially colligate education (e.g. Hurley is used by UT Austin, OSU, Notre Dame, The University of Vermont, IIT Kanpur, and at least a couple dozen other colleges). Cited sources also include published synthesis of research in the field such as the Baumgartner and Lampert paper and the Peregrin and Svoboda paper, both published in Synthese. The breadth of sources used is impressive, and I see no original synthesis in how information from sources is presented in the article.
 * The Hintikka, Jaakko (2023) source is an article in Encyclopedia Britannica . Per WP:BRITANNICA, secondary sources are generally preferable over tertiary sources like Britannica. This source is primarily used in places where broad definitions are being presented and is used alongside other sources every time except once (second paragraph of Problematic expressions). If it's possible to replace this source, e.g. with the definitions from a major textbook, I think that would improve the article. This does not need to happen as part of GA review, however.
 * I agree that Britannica is not ideal for controversial claims that require high-quality sources. Hintikka is a well-known and influential logician so I hope it's not too much of a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the context it's used in here makes sense.
 * ✅ For various natural language expressions, it is not clear how they should be translated and the right translation may differ from case to case. The vagueness and ambiguity of ordinary language, in contrast to the precise nature of logic, is often responsible for these problems. For this reason, it has proven difficult to find a general algorithm to cover all cases of translation. — Cited to Hintikka, pp. 327-328 of Hurley, and pg. 95 of Baumgartner and Lampert. Note that I am using the 11th edition of Hurley to verify; I don't expect the 13th edition text to differ dramatically. From Hurley: Unfortunately, however, ordinary linguistic usage often obscures the form of an argument. To dispel this obscurity, logic introduces various simplifying procedures. and Th us, when we say that the logical operators may be used to translate expressions in ordinary language, we mean that the operators capture a certain aspect of their correlative English expressions.. From Baumgartner and Lampert: None of the representatives of the traditional picture claim to offer sets of rules that would be severally necessary and jointly sufficient to resolve controversial mappings of logical formulae to statements. Rather, by reconstructing the theoretical underpinnings of the usual practice, they attempt to develop informal guidelines that shall help to clarify controversial formalizations. I think this is also an example of a place where the EB reference can be dropped without incident; the other sources seem more than sufficient to validate.
 * Done.
 * ✅ This criterion is not universally accepted and it has been criticized based on the claim that logical formulas do not have truth conditions. According to this view, the symbols they use are meaningless by themselves and only have the purpose of expressing the logical form of a sentence without implying any concrete content. — Cited to the 2016 Peregrin and Svoboda paper in Logique et Analyse. From source: And, as we suggested, it is equally clear that we cannot make use of the criterion that might come as the most natural one...the agreement of truth conditions.
 * ✅ Logic translations are frequently criticized based on the claim that they are unable to accurately represent all the aspects and nuances of the original text. For example, logical vocabulary is usually unable to capture things like sarcasm, indirect insinuation, or emphasis. In this regard, many aspects of the meaning of the original expression that go beyond truth value, validity, and logical structure are frequently ignored. — Cited to the Magnus et. al. textbook published by the University of Calgary. From source: There are subtleties to our ordinary claims that far outstrip their mere truth values. Sarcasm; poetry; snide implicature; emphasis; these are important parts of everyday discourse, but none of this is retained in TFL. and But TFL just is totally unequipped to deal with meaning..

I'm highly satisfied with this spot check; as I noted in the above, it may be the case that sometimes more sources are cited than needed to make a claim, but it does not appear to ever be the case that citation is insufficient to validate. Full pass on GA criteria 2.

Overall Comments: Overall the article is in a great state. Sourcing is thorough, reliable for the claims being made, and does not consist of original research. I am satisfied that the appropriately focused on the topic and broad enough to cover everything of interest, especially with improvements to the "basic concepts" section. Things are well written, clear to the reader, have an appropriate balance between technical depth and general accessibility, and free of major grammatical or spelling errors (I did some minor fixes here as I found them; feel free to double check).

— I'd like to see the criticism section address how widespread the concerns raised are and what they mean for the actual practice of logic translation (e.g. looking at sources it seems like these are generally acknowledged limitations but not arguments against doing any formalizations). I'd also like to see usages of phrasing like "some theorists" expanded if possible to clarify how widely accepted the positions being argued are. Otherwise everything looks good and I see no reason not to list. Let me know when you're done addressing the comments here and I'll be happy to finalize this! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I made the corresponding adjustments to the section "Criticism". I also took another look at claims about "some theorists". I hope I attributed or otherwise resolved all the problematic uses. Many thanks for all the helpful feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My concern was less that the language needed "softening" (though I think the changes you've made here are good) and more that the section should be putting the criticism into broader context. Specifically, it should be clear to the reader that this criticism is somewhat standard within the field and not mathematicians on the "other side" of logic translation, which doesn't seem to be a thing (contrasted with something like, say, string theory, where there are a substantial number of physicists who actively reject the idea).I think this could be fixed by adding a sentence or two to that effect; something like: "Criticism of logic translations is primarily focused on limitations and range of valid applications, as well as the way they are discussed in academic literature. Logic translation is a widely accepted and utilized process in the field of logic, even among theorists who criticize aspects of it." (assuming this sentence is generally correct, of course). It might also make sense to rename the section to "Limitations", but I don't feel strongly on that, and I think the key thing here is to give the section the sense of broad academic opinion on logic translation and not just the critical components. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 14:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion sounds good. I implemented it with a few minor adjustments. The title "Limitations" would fit well for the first paragraph but not for the second. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome! That was the last outstanding concern I had; I'm marking this as passed and listing it.

Result
— Article meets all GA criteria and outstanding concerns have been addressed. Listing. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural note — I am listing this under Philosophical doctrines, teachings, texts, events, and symbols, which lines up with where Logical reasoning was listed and matches with the P&R nomination. This could also conceivably be listed under Mathematical concepts and topics; my reasoning on using the former is to match both the nominator's suggestion and the grouping of related topics at GA like Logic and Logical reasoning. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 15:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)