User talk:HistorianofLogic

History of logic: FA standard?
Is it: (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
 * I believe it is well-written.

(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
 * It is comprehensive: it covers all the main periods of logic from antiquity to the present day.

(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
 * The main materials for this article were from my extensive logic library. I relied extensively on Kneale and Kneale's history of logic.

(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
 * the topic of logic is, I hope, entirely neutral and bias-free.

(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
 * there has never been an edit war over this article

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
 * The lead summarises exactly what is in the main sections.

(b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
 * yes

(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p.
 * Citations are mostly Harvard style (I would appreciate help on this though)

Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * The article uses summary style throughout.

&mdash; HistorianofLogic

Comment by Charles Stewart

 * Sorry, not signed in, IP 77.23.100.135 (talk)

I will say a little more about my criticism on the talk page, though probably not all that soon. I have only read the current version briefly, although I have read earlier incarnations of this page closely; I have made efforts to double-check my comments below against the current version, but it is possible I have not been completely thorough.
 * (Content a) Very good standard
 * (b) I think it covers the bases. I count myself an expert on logic, although history of logic is a weaker area for me.
 * (c+d) A mostly excellent standard.
 * You clearly know more about Stoic Logic than I do, but I am bothered by the neglect of Chrysippus, who I think is now regarded as the most important Stoic logician, one who was an important influence on Lukasiewicz. I am sorry to say, i don't think I can repair this properly, although the SEP article does provide material to balance coverage in this area.
 * Modern logic:
 * Psychologism deserves more treatment than as an indirect reference in an aside on Peirce.
 * The periods of modern logic section is very good, except that I would not have treated the period from WWII in this way. Topics are treated that I don't consider of such high importance (e.g., deontic logic), crucial topics omitted (e.g., the 'Entscheidungsproblem'), and some topics handled less than deftly (e.g., set theory).  I can fix these.
 * (e) I agree, stable. The quality of expert contributions to this article has generally been appreciated by editors with an interest in the article.
 * (Style a+b) Exemplary use of summary style.
 * (c) I haven't look closely at this. With Harvard style, it is a little perverse to separate the date from the author in the list of references (although that is exactly what ISO 690 mandates, which several medical journals combine with Harvard style!).  I recommend following the style used in the Logic article.

I am pleased to see there is will to take this deserving article to FA status, and I think the issues with the article can be repaired with moderate effort, which I will, eventually, be willing to invest. &mdash; Charles Stewart signed 09:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I think most of these comments can easily by addressed. The problem with post WWII is that I am not an expert on modern logic. HistorianofLogic (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)