Talk:A Guide to the Scientific Knowledge of Things Familiar/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Carcharoth (talk · contribs) 09:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Have read through the article and am currently reviewing it. It looks good so far. I should have some specific comments and a GA checklist ready for posting later today after I've looked at the article again in more detail. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks in advance! GDallimore (Talk) 12:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to put down some general comments here first, then move on to summarising in a checklist against the criteria. The version of the article I'm reviewing is 5 February 2012, and I've also read the April 2007 FAC (and the very short peer review and comment in your talk page archives), and the previous GA review in June 2009, as well as what the article looked like at the time of those reviews (9 April 2007 and 17 June 2009). Seeing how the article has changed over time is useful, and I'll be looking also at what previous reviewers said. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the GA criteria:

• (1) Well-written - on hold

  (a) I think the prose and grammar could do with some polishing and copy-editing, but I'll make some detailed suggestions about that on the talk page separately from this review as I think the prose at present meets the clear and concise criteria. I'll check for copyright issues when reviewing the sources. Spelling is fine.

  (b) As far as the Manual of style goes, this article's lead section could be expanded a bit. The layout is fine. There are a couple of phrasings I am not entirely comfortable with, but that is better dealt with under the factual accuracy criterion.

(a) I personally can't see any particular issues with prose or grammar, so you're going to have to be more precise. Sorry. I don't really care if it's not up to "FA standards". The other points I'll address in the relevant sections. (b) Yup, agree the lead is a little short. Once/if we reach agreement over the other points, the lead is probably the last thing to tackle. I disagree that there are accuracy problems as I'll explain below. GDallimore (Talk) 16:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right that I should have been specific. I'll have another look over the weekend and put some notes here (or on the talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• (2) Factually accurate and verifiable - on hold

  (a) Referencing formatting, density and layout is OK, with a couple of points where mid-sentence references could be handled better. The lead would read better without all the references used, or only one or two at most.

This is a point of personal preference as well as being appropriate for the current stage of the article. I personally prefer mid-sentence references and many references in the lead. It makes fact-checking and re-writing (especially large scale re-writing) easier and, in my view, leads to more stable articles. I understand that my personal preference is not necessarily in accord with the majority, but I also understand that it does not conflict with the MOS. If someone wanted to make this FA then this would need to be looked at since they have their own layout guidelines and my reasons for preferring over-referencing would be less relevant since the article should not then require any extensive re-writing. But for GA, I think it's both good and acceptable. GDallimore (Talk) 16:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a fair and valid point. I had the same thought today (regarding an unrelated article) that it can be laborious to expand and rewrite an article where the citations are not specific enough. If you come back to an article after a period of time, you almost have to start from scratch and pull up all the sources again in order to ensure that additions don't mess with what was done previously. So I'll cede this point and agree with you here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• (b) Some quotes not directly referenced at the end of the quote (e.g. the quote from the Punch reviewer). Other than that, the article is exhaustively referenced. I am concerned, like a previous reviewer, about the reliability of some of the sources, though. You shouldn't need to refer to an image of the title page of your 1880 edition to confirm the year of publication. The sourcing has, though, improved a lot from the versions reviewed in 2007 and 2009, particularly with the inclusion of the Lightman source.

Thanks for the Punch highlight. I couldn't spot any others, though?

I agree that what is currently reference [7] ("Nottinghamshire History: Edwinstowe". Retrieved 1 April 2007) arguably doesn't meet RS. But if you look at what I've done throughout the article, I think there's an sufficiently strong argument for keeping it.

Firstly, I've backed up facts taken from that source with a secondary reliable source where possible and my "over"-referencing has been used to demonstrate this within the article. Since so much of the reference can be confirmed in other sources, and I have not identified any errors, it speaks to the reliability of this reference - it gives it a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, if you like.

Secondly, I mention points which can be sourced solely to that reference only where I felt they were particularly worthy of mention. Losing them would diminish the article, I believe.

Thirdly, the points sourced solely to that reference are of the interesting anecdote variety and I do not think any of them are contentious. Keeping them in the article does no harm, I believe.

The photo of the 1880 edition title page undeniably verifies the publication date of that edition. As you can see from the article, information on the publication history is sketchy at best such that your assertion that we "shouldn't need to refer to an image of the title page" appears to be wrong. Why remove verifiable information from the article just because it's an unusual reference? It improves the article and Ignore All Rules springs to mind.

Are they any other troublesome sources? GDallimore (Talk) 16:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Punch quote was only one I found that wasn't directly referenced. Regarding the anecdotal material, would you consider reducing the prominence of this material by putting it in a footnote instead? Another option with borderline reliable sources is to use them as external links instead. On the 1880 book, can you not either: (a) link to a library catalogue listing of the edition to verify the publication date, or (b) simply cite the edition directly and include the link to the image file within that citation? My problem here is that there is no recognised citation format for citing to an uploaded image on Commons, and for good reason. Maybe ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for this one, and ask if anyone knows the best way to cite an image (if that is indeed acceptable)? I don't recall any other troublesome sources, but will look again when I do the copyediting read-through. Carcharoth (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• (c) One of the previous concerns was about original research. I think the article has come a long way since then, but there are still traces of it that can be seen. The bit that struck me in particular was from the lead: "Although presented as an accurate science text, the book actually promotes religious ideas, including divine design." Compare this to the sentence in the main body of the article: "Nevertheless, religious rather than scientific answers to certain questions are prevalent in the book, particularly answers inferring divine design." I'm not happy with the use of the word 'promotes' in the lead when compared with 'inferring' in the main body of the article. Inferring is different from promoting.

That passage could be improved by placing it in its historical context. There was a widespread tendency in 19th century scientific popularizations to place the study of nature in the context of divine providence.

"For many of these popularizers, nature was full of meaning, charged with religious significance. They looked back to the natural theology tradition and in their writings offered new audiences a vivid glimpse of the design they perceived in nature." (Lightman 2007, ix)

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. A direct quote from Lightman is what I was looking for. What I am hoping this article will be able to do is tell the reader whether Brewer's approach was normal for his time (1840s) and whether it would have been expected that his approach would have changed through the editions or not. I am worried that some presentism is still present in the wording used in this article (this was pointed out in one of the earlier reviews). Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead is not innacurate. It picks up on and summarises two points in the body (two birds with one stone). The relevant portions from the body are

"religious rather than scientific answers to certain questions are prevalent in the book, particularly answers inferring divine design."

and

"...to demonstrate that evolution had not destroyed theological tradition and to continue The Guide to Science's promotion of natural theology."

I think summarising this as "the book actually promotes religious ideas, including divine design" is accurate. I chose to highlight and link to Teleological argument rather than natural theology in the lead because it's a better defined concept and a significantly better wikipedia article.

I also think the section about reception and legacy already accurately makes the points that religious views were widespread among the mainstream audience, but importantly highlights that this was soon out of step with the scientific establishment (and was arguably out of step before its first publication although the sources don't really cover that point).

I nevertheless agree that the religious perspectives section could do with a little work. I'll be tackling that a little later. GDallimore (Talk) 17:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What I was trying to say here was that from the perspective of the modern reader there may be a need to state whether 'promoting religious ideas' was considered out of the ordinary for Brewer's time. The other wrinkle is that this book predates Darwin's work, though later editions come after Darwin published his work. I'm not saying that what is currently in the article is wrong, just that I think a nuanced and moderately complex argument has been simplified here. I'll have a read through those pages from Lightman again (the book looks excellent) and see if I can pin down what I'm trying to point out here. If that doesn't resolve this, it might be necessary to ask for a second opinion here, as though this is really the only sticking point left, it is critical to the thrust of the whole article. Carcharoth (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I think I get what you're saying. I was simply trying to focus on where the work needs doing which, to my mind, is just the religious perspectives section. I probably won't have a chance to get back to that until Sunday, though. Sorry. GDallimore (Talk) 22:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• (3) Broad in its coverage - pass

  (a) The main aspects of the topic are covered.

  (b) The focus is fine, and adequate context is given without unnecessary detail.

• (4) Neutral - pass

  The article draws on and balances a variety of sources, so I'm passing it on this criterion.

• (5) Stable - pass

  No edit warring or disputes here.

• (6) Illustrated, if possible, by images - pass

  (a) The three images used in this version of the article are fine as far as copyright goes (they are photographs of the 1880 edition of this book owned by the article nominator and author). I would try and make clearer in the permissions section of the images that one tag applies to the book contents and one tag applies to the permissions relating to the photographs you took (this needs to be clear because you've photographed the book, rather than scanned pages from the book).

  (b) The images are relevant to the topic, but I have a quibble about the captions. The captions currently only describe one of the two pages shown in each image. Pedantically, the captions are those you would use on scans of the pages in question (using such scans would have been my preference in the first place, but I'm guessing that you don't have access to a scanner or it would be hard to scan without damaging the book). It would be better if the captions made clearer that what we are seeing are double-page spreads that include the title and content pages. I noticed in earlier versions of the article, there were scans of pages - was there a reason for removing those?

• Summary: I think what is needed here is a rewrite and slight expansion of the lead section, a small amount of copyediting, a discussion of some of the sourcing along with a closer look at what was said in the 2007 FAC, and some other minor points. So I'll put the review on hold for now to give you time to respond. Carcharoth (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional thoughts

regardless of whether this passes GA or not, you should try getting opinions from previous reviewers if they are still active, both the previous GA reviewer and especially the previous FAC reviewers as they have the necessary background here (ragesoss in the history of science and Awadewit in literary studies, though this is properly a history of science topic). I have some moderate knowledge of the history of science (which is why I chose to review this article), but there are others who know a lot more about what is needed here, and you really need to get reviews from them if the article is to go much further. Carcharoth (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, looking at this soon. GDallimore (Talk) 15:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for the delay. I have been thinking long and hard about these points and therefore want to stress that I am not about to reject many of them out of hand, but only after careful consideration taking a view of the article as a whole and the overall balance. With that in mind, I will shortly be putting my comments into the various sections above. GDallimore (Talk) 16:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Update? Has there been any progress since the comment from last week? "I probably won't have a chance to get back to that until Sunday, though." I'll drop a note on the nominator's talk page asking for an update. Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't had the chance to read over the key sources again. Hopefully, soon. GDallimore (Talk) 17:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: Now starting on the reading, but some of the preview pages that were originally available on Google are no longer part of the preview unfortunately. I'll do my best! GDallimore (Talk) 12:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Using the preview pages on Google Books is not ideal. It would be better for those writing this article to have access to a full copy of the sources being used. But getting back to the main issue I still have, I've had another look at the article and it is the phrasing 'Although' followed by 'actually', and the sentence "Part of Brewer's approach in promoting his ideas was to avoid discussing religious perspectives until about a third of the way into the book so that the introduction of these ideas would appear more natural." The impression given is that this was a conscious choice made by Christian populist science writers to put 'spin' on the ideas they were presenting. This may well be correct, but may be misleading without additional context.

Is there a way to phrase all this that makes it clearer that this was the presentation of a very specific idea, that of reconciling science and religion (i.e. presenting them within the same framework) by allowing for scientific explanations for some matters, but still requiring divine design for more complex matters (that is what I understand natural theology to have been at that time)? In other words, combining scientific and theological explanations in the same book was the whole point - it wasn't an attempt to deceive the readers, but more to present to them examples of how science could explain simple things, but theology was needed to explain more complex matters.

Unfortunately, our natural theology article is very poor. The article on William Paley is much better. My concern is that 'promote' may imply to some that the book was intended to promote religion at the expense of science, when my understanding it that what was being promoted was a combination of science and religion in the same framework (natural theology). I apologise for having written at such length here, but I hope the above makes clear why I think "Although presented as an accurate science text, the book actually promotes religious ideas, including divine design." is an oversimplification. At this point, I think it really would be best to get a second opinion here. Would you mind if I asked someone else to take a look at this? Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Never apologise for being verbose! I'm not sure I agree with your take on Brewer's approach. I'm almost certain it's not "science can take us only so far". To the contrary, the impression I'm given by Lightman (in discussing Brewer's work in general, which is past the preview-only pages) is that Brewer believed that science was nothing without religion. Science had to be wholly within a religious context/framework. So I think "promoting religious ideas" is accurate, although perhaps not what you were thinking. I'm also not sure what additional context you might be looking for above the discussion of Brewer not being the only Christian ("anglican pastor" is the specific phrasing that Lightman uses) to do this and that there was a mounting struggle between science and religion particular after (although not solely because of) on the origin of species.

But do ask around, as I'm finding it difficult to spend much time on this at the moment. GDallimore (Talk) 17:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. The previous GA reviewer doesn't seem to be active any more, so I've asked those who participated at the FA review back in 2007. As I said, the article has improved a lot since then, but I want to see what those reviewers think now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll echo Carcharoth to say this is much, much improved, and on the whole it's a pretty strong article. The only thing that jumps out to me would be a (relatively minor) tone of presentism. The long 18 March comment from Carcharoth highlights the parts I think could be clarified a bit to add historical context. Our natural theology article is indeed pretty weak, but that's a big part of the cultural context of this kind of book in the mid-nineteenth century. I'm guessing that Lightman's book has a little more background / context discussion that could be used to clarify it a bit. On the whole, though, it's quite close to GA quality.--Ragesoss (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ragesoss. Hopefully Awadewit (the other reviewer from 2007) will have time to comment at some point as well. Given the review has been open for so long now, I think I need to close it one way or the other, depending on whether GDallimore can work on this now, or wants to take more time over this. It would be unfair to keep it open much longer. I'll drop them a note. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I left this review on hold for a while, but as not all issues have been addressed I'm closing it as not passing. It is close, though, so do consider a reassessment or re-nominate the article after you've managed to get hold of a copy of the Lightman source to provide the additional context mentioned. Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)