Talk:Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger book)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Footlessmouse (talk · contribs) 04:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I will review this over the next couple of days. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for nominating the article and giving an independent editor a chance to review it! This is how we make Wikipedia better! Having said that, I am going to fail your nomination today with what is called a quick-fail. I have plenty of notes, however and encourage you all to keep cleaning up the article to bring it up to Good Article standards. The quick fail is appropriate here as the it is a long way from meeting more than one of the good article criteria and it will likely take more than the next week to do so, and it would be an entirely different article. You may nominate it again at any time and this review will not harm the chances of it being promoted then, though it will be expected that the severe problems listed below be corrected. Don't let this discourage you, it's just part of the process. You may find inspiration by going to WikiProject Books and looking through their featured articles, which are stricter, but remember, only adherence to GA criteria is required. Thanks for all the hard work! Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 19, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Quick fail - See notes below

2. Verifiable?: Major reference consistency problems, see notes below

3. Broad in coverage?: Quick-fail - see notes below

4. Neutral point of view?: Not judged, see below

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

I encourage all involved editors to work hard to expand and improve the article and to re-nominate for GA as soon as they think it's ready.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What passes

• Article is stable for about a week since it's expansion from an anonymous user. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Image is fair use with proper rationale. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• I didn't get any major violations outside quotes on a copyvio check.
• I can't judge original research or NPOV due to other major problems with the article's clarity, also I believe whole article needs to be rewritten, see below. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Main fixes

• The lead needs to better summarize the article, it's three sentences barely establish notability. Also, why does the first sentence claim the article is over the revised and edited version rather than the pair? Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• The body of the article is not clear nor concise: there are way too many quotes, it relies on the quotes to make all the points, it is hard to follow back and forth discussing philosophy the book's content, reviews, etc. These should be separate sections filled with well written and well sourced statements from editors, not a string of quotes attempting to describe different topics in the book. I am a physicist and it's hard for me to read this, it should be clear to an appropriately broad audience. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• The website is not a reliable source. More importantly, the citation style is inconsistent, with some Harvard citations inline that don't link to the references section. There need to be accessible links in the references to allow for visitors to find the source, some of them are hard to find. You can use the cite button in the editor to do this. The inconsistent references are a no-go. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Given that there is an often cited guidebook that was independently published, I would expect at least a few paragraphs devoted to the book's content. I believe the lack of such a section massively violates the thoroughness rule to the point where a quick-fail is appropriate. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Here is a critique of the book that you didn't include which furthermore is over a topic of the book that is not discussed (it's refutation of Christian philosophy): DOI: 10.1017/s0034412515000505. The fact that this is another topic covered by one of relatively few published sources on the topic of the book, solidifies the quick-fail for thoroughness. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• In general, have a look at all the MOS pages that are list under WP:GA? to make sure you are in compliance with all of them before resubmitting. There is a lot of information there, but pay attention to the rules for the lead, at MOS:LEAD, also MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:W2W. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1953 or 1958? Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• The Politcs section needs to be extra careful with encyclopedic tone. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Statements such as "Heidegger's former student Jurgen Habermas appeared highly critical of the" is original research when only the quote that follows is referenced. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"Quotes are used to make the article's points." Yes. That's because the points are those of the authors who are quoted?

I despise the tendency of Wikipedia to obscure and bury sources in a footnote. In this particular instance, there is little agreement on H. -- such that direct attribution of ideas is in fairness, necessary. "I am a physicist and ...." Physicists able to read or critique language -- well, mostly they can't and don't. It's not their field.

But thanks a lot for your game effort! 2601:405:4A80:9E50:2844:3887:D508:6A58 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Other suggestions

• I think it should say it's a book based off a lecture rather than a published lecture course. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Don't use quotes on italicized text and vice versa, unless it is a quote where the author used italics. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• the book's title is used too often and it interrupts flow Footlessmouse (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Response to appraisal

-edit- Thanks. I disagree with much of your appraisal.

.Your first suggestion:

"Why does the first sentence claim the article is over the revised and edited version rather than the pair?"

Do you mean "about" when you say "over?" When you say "the pair," do you mean the original lecture and the published book? (Hint: the article's title says it's about the book.) Available published commentary is about the book. You raise interesting point about the manuscript. Its analysis would be far too deep in the weeds, though its slightly referenced in the Wikipedia article.

Your ideas about quotes:

I'm uncomfortable with the omniscient "voice of the encyclopedia" when reading anonymously edited Wikipedia material on Heidegger. Available source material consists of specific opinions of various individual authorities. As often as not, they disagree. Burying such information in a footnote is unfair to authors and less clear to the reader. Making it explicit adds credibility.

Moreover, quotes add "voices" directly to the text, making it (according to one well-accepted theory) more personal and interesting.

Finally (?) you may know that "appeal to authority" is on the usual list of fallacious arguments. As for being a physicist: physicists aren't particularly known for their ability to read widely or to critique language. Sorry I'm not more appreciative of your efforts, but I do thank you!!

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4A80:9E50:99DC:A2A0:5AB4:EFD1 (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 

2601:405:4A80:9E50:2844:3887:D508:6A58 (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note, my first suggestion was not a question about the first sentence, but a demand to fix the entire first paragraph. Encyclopedic tone is required for the good article criteria, and it will not be able to pass a nomination until after the various tone problems are fixed. The article should be written by editors in a clear and concise manner and be properly sourced. Stringing together quotes does not count as an encyclopedia article. Also, calling me out for appeal to authority seems a bit overboard when I just mentioned in passing the article is very difficult to read. I believe you have taken all of my suggestions and criticisms out of context and have ignored the most important ones. Namely: The article is not through and falls well short of good article criteria for breadth of focus and the article is not clear to an appropriately wide audience. If physicists don't count as part of the appropriately wide audience as relates to a metaphysics book, then no-one does, so my call to authority was valid. I am sorry you did not get the result you wanted, but please take the time to read and understand all objections before complaining about certain parts of some of them. Thank you for all your hard work. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

--edit-- Not to "ignore" your "most important suggestions and criticisms," which you characterize thus:

"The article is not through [through? thorough??..] and falls well short of good article criteria for breadth of focus and [plz limit to one "and" per sentence] the article is not clear to an appropriately wide audience."

Breadth: 17 authorities are cited and the book's major themes are covered with some connection to the author's earlier and later work. If thoroughness is (?) an issue, it's not glaringly apparent. But yes I'm basically "through" with it.

Clarity: Hmmmm... Heidegger IS difficult. One is advised (by automated text scoring sites) that "text intended for readership by the general public should aim for a schooling age [of] 13 to 14." Good advice, but for an article on this particular book it's an unreasonable goal.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:A95A:72AD:5A7:53CE (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please use main talk page for further discussion

Hi all, please use the main talk page for further discussion, this GA review is closed. I understand that you put a lot of work into the article, and on behalf of Wikipedia, I would like to say we are grateful. However, it still needs work. I stand firmly behind my assessment of the article as lacking in thoroughness. While the sections of the article has now are mostly fine, they should all be subsections under one giant section called themes and then a whole new article should be written to fill in all the gaps in information. There is nothing about the book other than what a few other authorities say about the themes of the book. Go to WikiProject Books and check out their format of non-fiction book articles, it may help. Put in a section on comments and a section on actual reviews of the book as a whole, separate from analysis of parts of the book. There is a bunch of work that needs to be done before it can pass GA review, and I encourage you to keep at it. I recently failed a GA review for an article I've been working hard on. The correct response to this, as I did, is to thank the reviewer for the time they took to explain the problems the article has and how you can move forward in improving it so that it can pass the second time around. Here's some writing more on my level: In the words of J Cole "I wish you good luck...".

Yes, the review is closed and the article has failed -- but can be improved!

Is it possible now that the IM article itself can be discussed irrespective of the review, on its talk page (under a separate "talk" heading)?

2601:405:4A80:9E50:88E9:5E63:9154:A0DE (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

IM Talk Page Linked Here?

It's creating some confusion. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:88E9:5E63:9154:A0DE (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)