Wikipedia:Peer review/Logic/archive3

Logic

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FAC. This would be my first nomination so I was hoping that an experienced reviewer could take a look at whether there are some obvious and maybe not-so-obvious problems and what difficulties to expect.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A follow up to your post on WT:FAC: Tertiary sources have the potential to be erroneous, in my view, when they don't cite their sources, don't list authors, and / or don't hire experts to write the content. Many general purpose encyclopedias have these problems, but the SEP does not, and in fact I've found it's quite good at summarizing philosophical debates. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Buidhe and thanks for taking a look at it. Congratulations on your core contest victory by the way, making so wide-ranging changes to an article on such a controversial topic is quite a challenge.

That's a good note about limiting the use of general-purpose encyclopedias that don't list their sources. Besides the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the article also uses the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, all of which don't have this problem.

My other concern is that this would be my first FAC and that logic is not an easy topic, meaning that many things can go wrong. On a short superficial look, were there any points with the article that raised your eyebrows? If there are no easily identifiable problems, maybe I should just jump in and take the risk that it may very well fail its first attempt. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know enough of the topic to make any real evaluation of the topic, however, I would encourage you to submit as the worst thing that can happen is it doesn't pass and you end up back at PR, but with more ideas on how to improve the article. (t · c) buidhe 15:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably what I'll end up doing. I'll leave the peer review open a little longer to see if I get some more feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor comments

From a first reading, looks ready to go forward as an FAC once some really minor issues have been addressed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. The reviewsourcecheck script is really helpful. It seems that the reference-bundling is mainly an issue for the section "Metalogic" and "Formal semantics of natural language". If I remember correctly, this is mainly because many of the main claims are covered by all the sources. I agree that, for some wikilinks, a duplicate at the first occurrence in a section might be helpful. However, they are highlighted by the duplinks-script and chances are that other editors complain about them. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend installing and running reviewsourcecheck (see link at [1])- this will tell you about some issues that I'd advise you go through before the formal nomination just to get them out of the way.
Might be worth running Citation Bot, as that hasn't been done for a couple of months.
I'm not a fan of bundling citations at the end of a section (e.g Metalogic here) but that's probably just because it makes source reviews trickier.
As I happen to have a copy (that I haven't opened for many a year), I noticed that the editors for Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings aren't listed.
A couple of authors are linked, but some others with articles aren't, e.g. J. L. Mackie, Ted Honderich, Willard Van Orman Quine
As MOS:DUPLINK has recently been amended, there may be some helpful links "at the first occurrence in a section" that could be added; but the duplicate links to propositional logic and first-order logic in the lead should be removed.

Comments from Guerillero

It has been a decade, but I had to endure logic for my Philosophy BA. This is mostly a placeholder --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guerillero, I would appreciate your feedback if you find the time. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close the peer review and start FAC. Your comments there are welcome. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]