Talk:Working from Within: The Nature and Development of Quine's Naturalism

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Working from Within: The Nature and Development of Quine's Naturalism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes (talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Looks like one that will need a lot of thought so I'll aim for the weekend to read it thoroughly. BoJó | talk UTC 14:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I've read the article twice and made a few minor tweaks. Looking at the GA criteria, it's very close to a pass with just one issue. Point 1b of the criteria includes MOS:LAYOUT and the problem is that the paragraphs are too long to be read comfortably, so I think they should be broken up a bit and the addition of sub-headings would help. I've already split the lead in this way per MOS:LEAD.

My suggestions would be:

• split the background section into two sub-sections entitled "Works on Quine" and "Quine's philosophy".
• paragraph breaks at "The book was also unique", "Instead, Quine characterised philosophy", and "Another important aspect".
• split Part I into "Chapter 2", "Chapter 3" and "Chapter 4"
• split Part II into "Chapter 5", "Chapter 6" and "Chapter 7"
• in Part I, paragraph breaks at "Verhaegh claims", "According to Verhaegh", and "Overall, Verhaegh views" (Chapter 4 is fine as a single paragraph).
• in Part II, paragraph breaks at "Furthermore, he struggled with", "However, according to Verhaegh", and "Verhaegh details how".
• split Reception into sub-sections by reviewer: Tuboly, Sinclair, Khani, Ebbs, Severo, and "Others" (i.e., Maco, Arreman and Morris).
• in Reception, paragraph breaks at "However, Ebbs proposes" and for each of the reviewers in "Others".

This will considerably help readability given that it is a difficult subject to both present and understand.

As far as the other criteria go, the article is well written apart from the paragraphing and I've no problems with the sources or citations. I think the breadth of coverage is good and completely within scope. No problems with POV or stability and the two images are appropriate. It's a very interesting subject that provides food for thought. As it happens, I completely agree with Quine about naturalism so I could read the article sympathetically. If you can just resolve the layout issue, it will then pass the review.

I'll place the review on hold but I don't do deadlines so no worries if you can't attend to it in the near future. All the best. BoJó | talk UTC 06:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review Boca Jóvenes!

I have made all the changes you suggested (with some minor differences), except for the reception section. I'm sympathetic to splitting up the paragraphs for readability but I think splitting it into subsections might be a bit much, especially down to a subsection for each author. I will think more about that section and come back to it later, hopefully I will think up a solution that is acceptable. Alduin2000 (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I have organised the section by topic rather than reviewer, with subsections for "Quality of historical scholarship", "Interpretations of Quine", and "Relevance to contemporary philosophy". Hopefully this solves the problem of readability/overlong paragraphs. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Alduin2000. Thank you for responding so promptly. The amendments are fine and I have no hesitation now in promoting this to GA because it is not just a good article but a very good one. Well done and all the best. BoJó | talk UTC 14:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Boca Jóvenes and thanks for reviewing the article. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the book Working from Within illustrates how W. V. Quine's philosophical thought challenges popular conceptions of philosophy? Source: "One of the many valuable philosophical contributions of the book is to explain in detail ... how Quine's naturalism systematically challenges the idea, still popular among some analytic philosophers today, that philosophy is an a priori discipline"[1]
  • ALT1: ... that the book Working from Within details how W. V. Quine only began to use the term "naturalism" years after he had already developed the key tenets of the philosophy? Source: "The final chapter of part two deals with Quine’s evolving views ... The basic elements were already in place in the early 1950s ... Being dissatisfied by the reception of Word and Object and the misunderstanding of his philosophical position led Quine in 1968 to adopt the label "Naturalism" for his philosophy."[2] "One of the many valuable scholarly contributions of the book is to show that it was only in the late 1960s, long after Quine developed the central tenets of his philosophy, that he began using the word "naturalism" to describe it."[3]
  • Reviewed: [[]]

Improved to Good Article status by Alduin2000 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Alduin2000 Good article. Personally I find alt1 to be a more interesting hook than the first one but i can still approve the nomination nonetheless. Since this seems to be your second nomination no QPQ is required. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Onegreatjoke, I'm happy to go with alt1 rather than the other hook. Thinking about it, alt1 is less vague and more concretely stated so is probably a better pick. Thanks for reviewing! Alduin2000 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)