Talk:Philosophy of science/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 17:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

All right, review complete! The article does a great job of breaking down complex concepts, and I especially like the engaging prose style. Starting off a section with "Should science aim to determine ultimate truth, or are there questions that science cannot answer?" is much better than a dry declarative statement of the problem.

The main problem is that referencing is thin in some places. I've highlighted the issues I see below, and I'm putting the article on hold for a week.

--Cerebellum (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Shouldn't Continental philosophy be decapitalized?
 * 2) The sentence Various types of commercial advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories seems out of place; I recommend removing it, or if you want to keep it at least providing a reference.
 * 3) Should Deductive-Nomological model be decapitalized?
 * 4) In the last sentence of "Scientific explanation," why is outcome-to-be-explained hyphenated? I think it could be changed to outcome to be explained.
 * 5) History - need to explain significance of Alhazen; you explain his experimental method, but what was his impact on the philosophy of science?
 * 6) Kuhn section - only one reference.
 * 7) Coherentism - no references.
 * 8) For the "Continental philosophy" section, there should be at least one reference per paragraph.
 * 9) Need citation for Dennett quote - greedy reductionism is "bad science." Also need page number for Dennett quote on philosophy-free science.
 * 10) Need references for sections on philosophy of mathematics, statistics, and physics.
 * 11) Need page number of reference #40, since it is a specific quote from Kuhn.
 * 12) I would also like a reference for the sentence about the science wars in the 1990s.
 * 13) This, this, [this, and this appear to be dead links.
 * Thank you! I hope you don't mind me changing your bullets to numbers for easier reference. (If you do, I will change them back.) 1-4, 11, and 13 were quick fixes. The rest will take a bit more work. -hugeTim (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 6, 7, and 9 are done, as well. That leaves: 5, 8, 10, and 12. -hugeTim (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I've addressed all of the issues you highlighted now. Thank you, again, for your help improving the article. Is there anything else you see that it needs? -hugeTim (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thank you for all the effort! Pass.  --Cerebellum (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)