Talk:Declarative knowledge

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Declarative knowledge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2

Declarative knowledge has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 4, 2023. (Reviewed version).

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

On 30 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Descriptive knowledge to Declarative knowledge. The result of the discussion was moved.

A fact from Declarative knowledge appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 May 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that declarative knowledge is an awareness of facts that differs from practical knowledge in the form of skills and knowledge by acquaintance based on experiential familiarity?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Declarative knowledge.

Wikipedia

Philosophy: Epistemology Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Passed. DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 16:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm DimensionalFusion and I'll be reviewing this article for GA status as part of the backlog drive.

Hello DimensionalFusion and thanks for taking the time to review this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and concise, and the prose is understandable to a broad audience.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article complies with MoS. Lead section covers the content and overview of the article. Layout broadly follows MoS guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article provides references to all sources of information within the article
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article makes use of extensive citations that back up facts inline. Sources are reliable and cite academic sources. After conducting random source check I have confirmed that the sources checked backup their corresponding inline claims
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article does not contain any original resource as all facts are cited inline and supported by a list of general references
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	After running through plagiarismdetector, no plagiarism appeared that was not a circular source (another source copying from this page)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article stays within the main scope of the topic in appropriate detail.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article appropriately stays on topic on an article and does not go into unnecessary detail. The lead section is rather long but I belive it is appropriate given the scope of the article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article follows NPOV and does not appear to give any one opinion undue precedence.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article does not seem to have any edit wars (recently, at least), and all reversions are reasonably justified.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images used are tagged with the correct copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Media are suitably captioned, relevant, and help develop an understanding of the topic
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add topic