Template:Did you know nominations/Anna L. Peterson


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Anna L. Peterson

 * ... that Anna L. Peterson argues that the usual separation of animal and environmental ethics is based on mistaken conceptions of humans, animals, nature and their relationship? (Source: From Andrew Woodhall's review of Peterson's book: "Peterson's book offers an appraisal of current approaches to environmental and animal ethics and deftly critiques the traditional division between the two fields. Attempts to unite the two fields, Peterson claims, have made little progress. Most have concluded that the divide between the two is irreconcilable, but Peterson argues that the divide is counterintuitive, does not reflect our current practice, and does not represent nature, nonhuman-animals, or humanity, correctly. // Throughout the book Peterson attempts to demonstrate why other theories have failed, arguing that the mutual exclusivity of the two fields derives from each relying on an incorrect idea of how nature, nonhumans, and humans relate to—and depend upon— each other.")


 * Comment: Created as part of WikiProject Women in Red/2016 Women in Philosophy Drive. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Created as part of WikiProject Women in Red/2016 Women in Philosophy Drive. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Created by J Milburn (talk). Self-nominated at 20:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC).

 * No issues found with article, ready for human review.  * Some overall issues detected Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article is new and was created on 20:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 3159 characters
 * &#x2713; All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
 * Note that this is a biographical article about a living person. All claims must be cited to a reliable source.
 * &#x2713; This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
 * ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 44.1% confidence. (confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 169 characters
 * &#x2717; J Milburn has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review is required for this nomination.
 * Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Gadis Arivia. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. Offline hook ref AGF; viewing the copied text cited above, and the way it's written I would reorder the hook as follows:
 * ALT2: ... that Anna L. Peterson argues that the usual separation of animal and environmental ethics is based on mistaken conceptions of nature, humans, animals, and the relationships between them?
 * ALT2 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection from me; thanks for the review. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)