Talk:Pseudo-Platonica

@Psychastes: Please explain your assessment. I admit I am mildly offended by C ratings, which should be abolished. Either Start or B. Srnec (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The short of it is that I rated it C because it's much more developed than any of the articles I would usually rate as "Start" but I don't think it can be a "B" yet.

I'm not entirely sure what you have against C-Class ratings, but we've currently got about 4000 of them in WikiProject Philosophy so it's not like an uncommon rating or anything that I expect is going to be done away with soon. Other than for automatic failures such as valid maintenance tags, I generally use it for articles that either don't seem "complete" (as in this case, where it looks like you're still adding content that belongs in entirely new sections!) or articles that aren't particularly long or heavily cited (not as much of a problem here, though given the breadth of the topic I think I'd expect much more than 1000 words). If I'm unsure, I generally reference the B-Class Criteria directly.

The first issue (which I didn't add a tag for because I suspected you were still working on the article) is that there are many redlinks. As far as content, the Greek section could be expanded quite a bit, the Arabic section reads like several disconnected ideas that are probably all correct but could certainly be written into more complete / well-formatted paragraphs and ideas. Overall I think the article is fairly technical as well, it references several people and neoplatonic pseudepigrapha that most readers of an article on Platonic psuedepigrapha won't be familiar with or understand the relevance of without more explanation.

Other than redlinks, as far as specific criteria, these are the two that I don't believe it meets yet:

B2.The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. <- not yet complete, still under construction with new sections being added

B6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. <- Overly technical, assumes much more familiarity with Arabic Neoplatonism than a reader coming from e.g. Plato would typically be familiar with. Psychastes (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised by your familiarity with the guidelines given you started your account a month ago. "C" is like a silver medal: it screams failure.

articles that either don't seem "complete" A start, I would call it.
does not contain obvious omissions There is a reason my standard edit summary for new articles is "start".
though given the breadth of the topic I think I'd expect much more than 1000 words I think that depends on how you look at it. It is an overview article. We don't even have an article on the Platonic corpus. Each of the individual works mentioned in the first section have dedicated articles (save the epigrams). Details on individual works would be WP:UNDUE here.
there are many redlinks Why would that be a problem at all? See WP:RED.
familiarity with Arabic Neoplatonism than a reader coming from e.g. Plato If anything is unclear, please let me know. Srnec (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

given you started your account a month ago as it says on my user page, I remade my account. My old account is Carchasm. I've also been here more than long enough to know not to let you push me around on your own personal issue. If you think that the C-Class shouldn't exist and that you could convince other people, go bring it up at the Village Pump or something, I don't care. Otherwise, grow up and stop throwing a temper tantrum :). Psychastes (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)