Talk:Alasdair Cochrane

Disgusting self-promotion

This guy is a nobody in political science. As usual, Wikipedia prostitutes itself to self-promoters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.35.123 (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

None of his books or articles have close to even a hundred citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.35.123 (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with above comments. From the picture, there appears to be a dozen people in his seminar. All University departments have same similar audiences on seminar days, so why isn't every academic in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.95.161 (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Refs

@J Milburn: please check the refs. Some of the notes don't correspond to any cited works. Eg. there is Cochrane 2012a in the notes but not in cited works. The ones that give me error (Template:Harvard citation documentation#Possible issues) are: Cochrane 2010a, Cochrane 2012a, Cochrane 2014, Hadley 2013a, Schmidt 2015, Milligan 2015, Donaldson & Kymlicka 2011. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this note; I'll have a fiddle. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, think I got them. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, J Milburn. One more: Cochrane 2010 – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alasdair Cochrane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it had to wait more than three months for a (decent) review. I will post a review soon. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Fairly well-written, only a few comments: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• The article discusses such a lot about the reactions of others to Cochrane's philosophy, but the lead does not seem to cover it in much detail. Looking at the length of the article, it won't do any harm if you have to extend it to 3 paras, per WP:MOSLEAD.
  • I've expanded the lead to try to better place Cochrane's work in context. Was that what you were imagining? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    • How on earth can you read my mind? ;) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Education

• Articles generally begin with the full name of the person unless the article is too short.
  • Did you mean for this to be about the lead? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, understood; was this what you meant? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Got it right! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• You need to introduce Meadowcroft
  • Ok, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Is Moral obligations to non-human animals the same as Moral obligations to non-humans?
  • Yes, sorry, fixed. Good catch.
• Just curious, where do you use italics and where not?
  • In this article, italics are used for book titles, thesis titles, journal titles, non-English terms, to denote a self-references and in one case for emphasis (following the cited author). Do you think I've missed it somewhere? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Nothing, my bad. I thought "Non-human animals and experimentation" was a separate work. Hope can you maintain such a level of consistency?! :D Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Academic career

• What exactly is a liberty thesis?
  • A thesis about liberty. Garner calls Cochrane's idea his liberty thesis, and I thought it was a nice third-party source to follow. I introduce it at first mention: "his "liberty thesis", the idea that nonhuman animals lack an intrinsic interest in freedom". Do you think this could be clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, I thought it was some special type of thesis, but missed the inverted commas. The reader should be able to understand that this is a quoted term. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Robert Garner, John Hadley, Andreas T. Schmidt, and Valéry Giroux A common introduction to them, such as "philosophers", would sound good.
  • I'm happy to call Garner a philosopher, but I think it would raise some eyebrows. I've gone for "the political theorist Robert Garner and the philosophers John Hadley, Andreas T. Schmidt and and Valéry Giroux." Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Good choice. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• A link for "animal ethics", at first mention in this section, would be appreciated
  • Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Say either "think-tank" as in the lead or "think tank" everywhere.
  • Gone for "think tank" to follow our article. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oscar Horta, Stuart R. Harrop and Steven White Who are they?
  • Clarified. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Donaldson and Kymlicka's picture I see this is explained in greater detail in one of the following sections, but when I first read this I could not make anything of the "picture". It would be good to explain this a bit more in this section.
  • Ok, sure. I've introduced the Zoopolis framework a little earlier on. It's very much the big proposal in this area; while Garner's probably the big name in the UK, Donaldson and Kymlicka are the biggest names worldwide. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Great, much clearer. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Research

• Svenja Ahlhaus and Peter Niesen Who are they?
  • Clarified. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Should "Animal Politics" not be in sentence case?
  • Yeah, I puzzled over this. They use title case, and it's their term, so I followed their lead. (For what it's worth, I think they've gone wrong in drawing a discontinuity between animal ethics and animal politics, but I see why they've said what they say.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Stupidly missed the quotes again! Indeed, their term should be kept intact. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Interest-based rights approach

• Cochrane's advocates "Cochrane"?
  • Yes, good catch. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Other research

• I don't think the links to "punishment" and "prison" are required unless you wish to highlight something specific.
  • I've dropped the link to prison, but I'd rather keep the link to punishment; there's quick nice run-down of the classic theories of punishment in the article. I'd imagine some readers might think "huh? How can you study punishment?" Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, right! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Very well, I am sure this is dangerously near FA standard! :) Promoting this. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this; I do intend to push this FA-wards in the medium term. Given that I've written articles about both of his books, though, I now have a good topic nomination to do... Josh Milburn (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that! But hey, where do I list this in the GA lists? I can't seem to find a good category for this in Society and social sciences. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good question. As a political theorist, he probably belongs in Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Political issues, theory and analysis. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)