Talk:Roger Scruton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review, though it may come in parts. I am familiar with Scruton's work and pleased to see this article brought to GAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Josh, thank you, much appreciated. In case it matters, I didn't write the "Philosophical and political views" section. I may have added bits of it over the years (I recall writing some or all of the Sexual desire subsection), but overall that section is not my work. But I'm happy to make changes to it if you think they're needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps the lead could benefit from a more explicit mention of his work on aesthetics? I also wonder whether some indication of early life (where he grew up, where he studied, who he studied under) may be beneficial. It doesn't currently have the "whole article snapshot" feel that good leads often do.
• "Scruton was born in Buslingthorpe, Lincolnshire, to John "Jack" Scruton, a teacher from Manchester, and his wife, Beryl Claris Scruton (née Haynes), and was raised with his two sisters in Marlow and High Wycombe." Two paragraphs later: "Scruton lived with his parents, two sisters, and Sam the dog, in a pebbledashed semi-detached house in Hammersley Lane, High Wycombe." Clarification (and perhaps removal of repetition) would be good.
• A quick Google search is not revealing a "Manchester High School" (at least not one Mancunian man would have gone to); I wonder whether this should be rephrased to something a little more vague ("a grammar school in Manchester", perhaps).
• "where he met his first wife, Danielle Laffitte". She wasn't his wife when they met; how about "where he met Danielle Laffitte, who would become his first wife" or "where he met Danielle Laffitte, whom he married in [year]" or "where he met Danielle Laffitte, whom he would go on to marry"?
• A thought: I'm surprised we don't have an article about Michael Tanner...
• "Scruton was awarded his PhD in January 1973 for a thesis entitled "Art and imagination, a study in the philosophy of mind", supervised by Michael Tanner and Elizabeth Anscombe." Would theses not be treated like books, grammatically? So: Art and Imagination, A Study in the Philosophy of Mind?
• "The thesis was the basis of his first book, Art and Imagination (1974), which was followed by The Aesthetics of Architecture (1979)." Would it not be more natural to cite these books at first mention? And perhaps offer a brief introduction to their contents? (No need to overlap with the thought section; more just offer context.)
• "Scruton's academic career at Birkbeck, and perhaps in the UK in general, was blighted by his conservatism," This doesn't feel very neutral.
• Perhaps "G. A. Cohen" would be preferable to "Jerry Cohen"? He's generally known by the former, in my experience.
• The Salisbury Review or the Salisbury Review?
• "including the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, egalitarianism, feminism, foreign aid, multiculturalism and modernism" Some links would be valuable, here!
• "and the University of Glasgow philosophy department boycotted a talk Scruton had been invited to deliver to its philosophy society (the university awarded an honorary degree to Robert Mugabe on the same day.)" What do these things have to do with each other?
• "The 1980s established Scruton as a prolific writer." Do we have a source for this claim?
• "There were structured courses, samizdat translations, books were printed, and people sat exams in a cellar with papers smuggled out through the diplomatic bag." I feel these sentence is a bit off, both grammatically and tonally.
• "The Czech dissident Bronislava Müllerová watched him walk across the border with Austria" I personally hate these in-line links to other Wikipedias; are you attached to it?
• "On 17 June that year, he was placed on the Index of Undesirable Persons" What is this precisely?
• " Scruton has been strongly critical of figures in the West—in particular Eric Hobsbawm—who "chose to exonerate" former communist regimes' crimes and atrocities.[57]" The formatting for your source is off, and I wonder if you have a secondary source making that claim?
• "from the Moonies and" Should that be "from The Moonies and"?
• "Scruton had flown back to England every weekend" Is this hyperbole?
• Would it perhaps be more consistent with the rest of the article to have "Academic posts, knighthood" as a (the single) subsection of "2010s"?

Stopping there for now; will be back to have a further look in the coming days (perhaps later this evening). Please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking again:

• "In an Intelligence Squared debate in March 2009, Scruton (seconding historian David Starkey) proposed the motion: "Britain has become indifferent to beauty" by holding an image of Botticelli's The Birth of Venus next to one of the supermodel Kate Moss." This strikes me as trivia. Generally, I think this section would benefit from more on what his views on aesthetics actually are; indeed, I think the article is actually unduly balanced towards discussing his politics rather than his aesthetics.
• "in the sense of the right to obedience" Unclear
• "that human beings have a transcendental dimension" Link?
• "He argues that we are in an era of secularization" I don't like the we, here; it's not clear to me what is being referred to.
• "He agrees with Alain Besançon that" Again, I'm not keen on these links; are you attached?
• "transcendental negation" is not going to be familiar to many readers.
• "Scruton considers that religion" Odd use of consider; how about "holds", "argues" or "claims"?
• "Martha Nussbaum argued that Scruton did not apply his principle of otherness equally—for example, to sexual relationships between adults and children.[113] He argued in an essay, "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" (1989), that homosexuality is a perversion because the body of the homosexual's lover belongs to the same category as his own.[114]" Nussbaum's challenge is expressed a little too quickly, I think, and it's not clear how Scruton's views about homosexuality tie to the rest of the paragraph (though I agree that they belong in the article). I note that Nussbaum's view is about the only philosophical criticism included in the article.
• Would it be useful to separate books edited from books authored? I'm also inclined to think that full citations (or at least publishers and co-authors/editors) would be valuable additions to the bibliography.
• I was surprised to see no mention of animal rights or the Church of England, and would have thought that a little more on green conservatism would be good.

Stopping again. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Josh, I had started making edits (not yet saved) to address your first points, then I saw your next post here. I think I'd prefer to withdraw, or have you fail it. I nominated thinking it met the GA criteria, though I realize there are gaps in coverage. But if you feel it really needs more on aesthetics, AR, church and green conservatism, and more criticism, for GA, I'd prefer to leave it. It's not an article I intend to do a lot more work on. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I've been a little too critical. To be clear: I don't think it needs more criticism necessarily, though perhaps it'd be better, in that case, to remove the Nussbaum material, so we don't simply have criticism of merely one element of his views. I do think it needs more on aesthetics, though the green conservatism, C of E and animal rights material could be just a line or two each. If you'd still rather withdraw, I understand, but I am also open to discussing precisely what needs to be done. Another possibility is this: we could withdraw, improvements could be made by someone (us, we, others [caveat: I don't have nearly as much time for Wikipedia at the moment as I have in the past]) and then it could be renominated at some point in the future. Let me know what you're thinking; I'm in no rush, whatever your preference. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Josh, I think I'd prefer to withdraw. I nominated it on the spur of the moment, not thinking it was brilliant or comprehensive, just that it met the GA criteria. The AR material alone would be difficult to write because his views are complex, and I'd have to read about hunting too. That, plus the aesthetics and the rest would be a fair bit of work, so I'd rather leave it there. But thank you for your detailed review, which will be very helpful for the future. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Understood; I'll close the review at this time. I do think this is an article worth working on; it will attract a lot of views for an article on a contemporary philosopher, and both neutral and comprehensive coverage of Scruton is likely to be hard to come by! Thanks for your efforts so far, and I'd be happy to work with you on the article further if this is something which interests you. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh, I appreciate that offer, and thank you again for your work on the review. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)