Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Assessment/Archive/1


 * Can I suggest someone look at the Francis Bacon article. It's currently rated as "C" for this group, but I'm of the view that it deserves a higher rating as significant improvements have been made. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article on Paolo Virno is start class but do not agree with its assessment as of low IMPORTANCE. Virno is an important figure in the philosophy of political action and communication, as well as of the positioning of types of labor and collectivity in the present world, and deserves better. The article has some strange wording and is inadequately sourced, but the 'low importance' assessment seems to be independent of that. ( Also, what's there needs some copy editing.) Actio (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Might someone please look at the Arius article again? It was rather poorly written before, and had a "rewrite" tag on it when I found it and set about rewriting and reworking it from top to bottom.  I'd be interested in seeing where it is now, compared to where it was before, together with any suggestions for improvement.  I definitely think it's better than "Start" class, now. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Douglas Moggach. Please reassess value and stub status. Thanks. (Canadian1982 (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Need some editing and review on Kant's antinomies Efiiamagus (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Bad faith article needs help. All RS content in the philosophy section of that article was reverted out twice. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Justice as Fairness article has been substantially reworked and renovated, improving the content and referencing the majority of claims with a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Thedaggerz (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Genus–differentia_definition; I believe the last assessment was some time ago.


 * I have been in /Cved in work that I think might bring both reason and nous to a new assessment level. Can someone have a look?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also can someone please consider the assessment justified for potentiality and actuality which I think has changed quite a lot since it was last assessed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Several leading experts in the field rewrote the article Multi-criteria decision analysis. The article covers the main aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis with care and includes important references for further information.  The article has been structured to allow linking subfields naturally.  The structure has been developed through discussions in the two main lists in the area and other leading experts in the field have committed to write articles in the subfields to complement this article.  This article deserves a new rating. Koksalan (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Negative capability. I just overhauled this article, which should make it eligible for an upgrade out of "start class" and an importance rating. I would also appreciate any general feedback. Archivingcontext (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rated this C class and low importance. My main problem with the article is that it is not as clear as it could be. The lead is worded in quite a confusing way and could be simplified (if you then want to go into detail, do that in the main body of the article). The article also needs background information - what you've got on its development is good, but a reader thrown straight into that may have no idea what the idea is about or responding to. You have some good sources, but heavily rely on a few - it wouldn't hurt to find more.


 * Therefore, I suggest:
 * A section on the background is written to make the context of the article clearer to someone approaching the idea for the first time.
 * Improve the lead. I would suggest that you have one paragraph in the lead per section of the article (though no more than 4 paragraphs). Cover each important area in a much more simple way that you will in the rest of the article. I suggest you fix the lead once everything else is sorted.
 * See if you can find a few more references.


 * I hope that helps. Leave a message on my talk page if you have nay further questions or anything. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can someone take look at the Tetrabiblos article. It currently has no rating. --  Zac   Δ talk! 13:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Reflectivism article has been very substantially rewritten. A large number of references has also been added.  Would it be possible to re-assess?--Ksamjg (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Mirror test has changed significantly since it was last assessed (either up or down). I merged the Rouge test article in with it and did some significant rewriting. I fixed some issues but may have introduced others with the merger. &mdash;Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 20:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * All men are created equal is currently classified as Stub-Class; after cursory inspection it seems to me that it could be upgraded to Start-Class. What do you think? --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have overhauled Philosophy Documentation Center and re-assessed it from "Stub" to "C". I'm not too familiar with this project, but from the above scale it seems that it's importance rating should be "Low", instead of the current "High". Perhaps someone from this project can have a look. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The importance of the article Normative OUGHT TO be assessed as High, or Top (I have just made a normative claim). The concept is fundamental to Ethics, Aesthetics (and other Values), also Social and Political philosophy and indeed arguably fundamental to understanding Wikipedia's "Neutral Point-of-view" policy and even more IMPORTANTLY its "notability" requirements. It is the normative character of the field of ethics and aesthetics that strongly distinguishes their content from that of "science" (aside - in my opinion, aesthetics ought to be classified as a sub-class of ethics). Indeed, it is a commonly held belief, particularly amongst scientists, that all normative claims are unscientific. Arguably, a writing from a "Neutral Point-of-View" is highly correlated with writing that is non-normative. "Notability", in fact, is an intrinsically normative concept. It is almost impossible to have a sensible discussion about cultural relativism without an understanding of normativity, whether or not that understanding is explicitly connected to that term. With only slight exaggeration, "normativity" is a concept as fundamental to philosophy as that of "unknown quantity" is to algebra.Thomasee73 (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please may I request that the article Edward Bullough is reassessed, as to quality only? It was expanded from a stub this week. Many thanks. Mouse ABC (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Kim Il-yeop This article has been given an importance rating of "Top". I do not think this is justified - such a rating has been reserved for topics such as logic and Aristotle. Please review the importance rating for this article.


 * I have posted on the Talk page the next statement:
 * If we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause, and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause, then this chain of cause-and-effect either goes on ad infinitum or it ends at some primordial cause which, as it cannot be reduced to a preceding cause, cannot be understood by definition, so causality ultimately cannot explain anything. Discussion, please (on the Talk pag)e about whether to put it in the causality article. Antonquery (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Subject-object problem: This article had a massive multiple issues header and now has been completely re-written. Please make a new assessment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Greg Bard (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dialectic - I feel that only people who already understand the topic could understand the explaination. --User:71.192.25.119


 * Twenty one philosophy journals are ranked top in importance, which seems crazy to me. Few people outside of philosophy will be familiar with them, so they should be ranked low. Beamish Son (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Beamish Son


 * I have rewritten liberal paradox. I would greatly appreciate some other set of eyes.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rationalism has been improved by Joshuafilmer. I think it qualifies for an assessment upgrade. Could someone from this project please take a look. MrBill3 (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sentences of Sextus - Unassessed article on a text that mixes Christian and Pythagorean material (Or simply gives Pythagorean material a Christian 'spin'. Needs assessing. Also if anyone is interested I managed to find some more sources.Graham1973 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Exhortation to the Greeks - Shameless self-promotion. I'm thinking C quality, not stub.  Any agreement? -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Philosophy of science - is it to B yet? Any suggestions for what's needed before a GA review? -hugeTim (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Could someone reassess bias please ? Anthere (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've expanded the stub article on the important Plato and Aristotle scholar Harold F. Cherniss, which turned out to be an exciting detective story (atom bombs, spies!). I'm a new member of Wikiproject Philosophy. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome! JohnD&#39;Alembert (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've translated a terrific article from the German Wikipedia on Plato's unwritten doctrines. The Germans rated it as excellent and made it a featured article. Did that come through in the translation? Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome! JohnD&#39;Alembert (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Self-disorder


 * The Mismeasure of Desire is presently rated a stub, but that assessment was made in November 2013, and the article has been expanded since then. Requesting reassessment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Requesting someone to tell us if effective altruism is B-class yet.  K . Bog  22:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Requesting assessment of the article "Nader El-Bizri" and its improvement. Thank you (AcademeEditorial (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC))


 * Could someone please assess the ataraxia article? I've expanded it somewhat and I think it could be moved from stub to start class. Thanks. Ethan Della Rocca (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to have Gabrielle Suchon removed from stub class as I have added a significant amount of content. Thank you!Vsgrossman (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The article The Ecology of Freedom currently lacks ratings on the project's quality and importance scales. I request them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The article Fashionable Nonsense currently lacks ratings on the project's quality and importance scales. I request them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The article Ecology, community and lifestyle currently lacks ratings on the project's quality and importance scales. I request them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert L. Holmes --> Kindly reassess when time permits. It is currently rated as a Stub but has been upgraded with an Info Box, a photograph, a section on Moral Philosophy, an expansion of the Publications section, an External Links section, and additional links to pacifism and nonviolence related articles. Many thanks in advance.104.207.219.150 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)PS


 * Bias is currently Class-C and High-importance. But the page has had a major overhaul since its last assessment. When possible can someone take a look? Thanks. - Andrewaskew (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Crito. I recently finished translating the article after it had turned out that it was plagiarized, so I believe a reassessment in in order. puggo (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Economic ethics is currently Class-C but lacks a rating on the importance scale. Also, a significant amount of content has been added since its last assessment. Please review. Thanks in advance, your help is greatly appreciated.Hyperionperc34 03:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Political bias is currently Class-C but lacks a rating on the importance scale. Also, a significant amount of content has been added since its last assessment. Please review. Thanks in advance, your help is greatly appreciated. 2804:14C:5BB5:8076:6093:746:AC7:F76A (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Religious philosophy is currently rated a Stub. However I've added material and have expanded the page to include multiple sections and would appreciate a revision of the class rating. Thanks in advance! --NagaiEE (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)