Talk:Metaphysics/GA1

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

Nominator: 17:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 07:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

taking this review. 750h+ 07:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks a lot for doing this review! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

lead

 * It is often characterized as first philosophy, implying should it be "first philosophy" or "the first philosophy"? Correct me if i'm wrong.
 * I think either is acceptable, Cohen & Reeve 2021 do not use an article but I have also seen sources that use an article. I slightly prefer it without article but I don't feel strongly about this. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It investigates existence and/or being, the features don't change this but I just wish there was a word for "and/or". I can't think of any so just leave it as it is
 * I agree, "and/or" is odd. I tried to adjust the sentence to be first about existence since it later talks about the categories of being. But we could also leave it as it is. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly mind with this one. I think either is fine. 750h+ 12:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

definition

 * ..providing an account of what metaphysicians actually do while others.. remove "actually"
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ..Some philosophers follow Aristotle in describing metaphysics as "first philosophy",.. like what i said before, do you think it should be "the first philosophy" or simply "first philosophy"
 * See the comment above. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In regard to the analysis of conceptual schemes, philosopher P. F. Strawson.. change "In regard to" to "Regarding" or "Concerning" for conciseness.
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The nature of metaphysics can also be characterized in relation to its main branches. do we have a more concise alternative for "in relation to"?
 * "In the last paragraph of the Branches subsection, "Meta-metaphysics" shouldn't be bolded
 * I think this is because Meta-metaphysics redirects there, see MOS:BOLD. I added an anchor so it redirects directly to that paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I still think it shouldn't be bolded. I think you should leave it unbolded, and when/if you decide to create an article you link it. But I don't think it matters much so you can leave it as is if you want. 750h+ 12:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

topics

 * According to Alexius Meinong, there are some objects that do not exist ==> According to Alexius Meinong, some objects do not exist
 * I implemented a slightly different reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * objects persist through time and undergo changes in ==> objects persist through time and change in
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As they undergo changes, they ==> As they change, they
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Free will plays a key role in ethics in regard to the moral responsibility people have for what they do. I think "concerning" or "regarding" sounds better than "in regard to".
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

methodology

 * component parts in order to clarify their change "in order to" to simply "to".
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

criticism

 * A slightly weaker position allows that metaphysical statements have meaning ==> "A slightly weaker position allows metaphysical statements to have meaning"
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

relation to other disciplines

 * this section is a pass, no problems here. nice work!

history

 * may be my own personal opinion, but with Meanwhile in Indian Buddhism, the Madhyamaka school you might consider adding a comma after "Meanwhile"?
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * universals by stating that universals can exist both in matter and in the mind. remove the second "in".
 * Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

overall the prose is excellent, amazing article. source and image review are coming. 750h+ 11:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

image review
There are seven images in the article currently. They are all appropriately licensed and have WP:ALT text, so this shall be an image review pass. 750h+ 12:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

source review and spot check
I'll spot check six sources. Reviewing this version
 * 1 OK
 * 4 OK
 * 10 OK
 * 15 OK
 * 77 OK
 * 175 OK

Source quality, like always, looks great, so I'll be passing this. Excellent work User:Phlsph7.

verdict and other comments
Excellent work Phlsph7. Address the remaining comments I have and I'll be happy to promote this article to Good Article status. Well done. 750h+ 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem Phlsph7! with that, i think this article is eligible for GA status. Nice piece of work, and I hope you elevate this to a higher status! 750h+ 12:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)