Wikipedia:Peer review/David Kellogg Lewis/archive1

David Kellogg Lewis

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…the man seems to be an important philosopher and the tags on the article indicate some direction or work is needed. There are constructive comments on the talk page, but no clear suggestions on how to make the article a good one. It's currently rated low importance. Should it be higher? Anyone have citations?

Thanks, Levalley (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I should also mention that I think this article is not of low importance. I'm speaking as a non-philosopher, but as someone with an academic background. Kellogg Lewis is an acknowledged influence on Kripke, which should raise him above low level - just my opinion. Would like to hear yours.--Levalley (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dudes, I second Levalley. I'm more than a little biased, though. But since by an unbelievable coincidence I happen to be writing up some of his work into the methodology of my dissertation atm, I can pretend I'm actually working on it while I review the article. Gimme a few days, I'll make some suggestions for future work. Gimme twelve months and I'll implement those and more. Feature this man! P'raps I could recruit support from the David Lewis fan club at Facebook. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've noticed Brian Weatherson has been slated to write up the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on David Lewis. In fact, they are planning two articles on him, one dedicated to his metaphysics. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree with the cleanup tags at the top - this needs some major work, so here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * Biggest problem as I see it is a lack of references - my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Language uses a fair number of peacock terms that seem to be possibel violations of WP:NPOV. If these were referenced or used as direct or indirect quotations, that would be much better. Examples: The formidable intellect for which he was known later in his life was already manifest during his years at Oberlin High School, when he attended college lectures in chemistry. or this At Princeton, Lewis was a gifted mentor of young philosophers, and trained dozens of successful figures in the field... I don't doubt these are true, but back the statements up by saying who thinks this or even quoting them (with refs of course)
 * The use of block quote for "Had I made that shot our team would have won the game." violates WP:MOSQUOTE (four or more lines of text)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Publications should come at the end
 * Don't bury details in references - the NYT obit has details that should be in the article, not in a note
 * Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow of the article by combining them with others or perhaps expanding them
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Hilary Putnam is a WP:FA and may be a good model article here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Great comments as always Ruhr. Thank you and agreed. Major work needed is a fair assessment. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)