Talk:Naomi Zack

notability note
Zack massively exceeds both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. Unfortunately with the number of major missing philosophers I'd like to get on to Wikipedia in the near future I don't have time to sum up all of her work, but each book she's written has received at least ten or fifteen reviews in reputable journals. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

copyedit tag
I'll go through the article and ce it for spacing etc in the immediate future, but I see no issues with the use of italics in this article. Book titles should be italicized, and the MOS says that italicizing for emphasis (as I have done in one place) is perfectly acceptable. I'll look for good targets for the red links, but many of the red links in this article are articles that should exist that we currently don't have - and in that situation, there's nothing wrong with having redlinks (I mean, that's their explicit purpose,) though I'll look at their density as well. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I cut down on the redlinks a bit for readability, and italicized the journal titles (which I had somehow missed the first time about,) as well as fixed some other issues. I'll go over the article a bit more, but haven't found any spacing problems (except for one I introduced while copyediting.)  If you see any further issues (especially spacing issues,) please drop a note here so I know what to poke at.  Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You got it. I did a bit more. It was the italics in the journal titles and the redlinks to disciplines I noticed, as well as one missing space in the infobox (the spacing in the refs is a particular quirk of mine, I do that for readability and to make the text wrap better in the edit mode but it's not "required"), and you fixed the other one that was a result of copying and pasting. There's nothing wrong with redlinked journal titles, of course, and in fact if you check "what links here" you might find they are listed as "missing". With redlinks to concepts, sometimes there is simply a redirect that needs to be made, which I figured was the case here. COI note: I believe I went to school with one of Ms. Zack's children. Thanks for caring about copyediting! Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, given the field, a lot of the disciplines really are just red links, as are a lot of the journals. I'm not entirely happy with how I wikilinked the disciplines because they don't quite match up with what Zack focuses on and the disciplines she focuses on could warrant their own articles.. but for practical purposes I'm happy to leave them in place for now, since they give readers more information than they would otherwise have.  I eventually intend to write articles about most of the missing articles (and concepts and disciplines) in this and related fields, and will come back and make the targets more appropriate when I do.  I left the RPR redlinked because it's probably the most prominent missing journal, but unlinked the other ones for now just to improve the readability of the article. And I think we can count that as a de minimis coi ;)  (I commented on your talk before I saw your post here.)  Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)