The Philosophy of science Portal is a featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia. If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.
This page 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.
Recommendations to improve page to featured portal status
List includes recommendations with replies/status.
"Quote" should not be 100%, move under "Categories" to fill missing space.
Done. The portal guidelines say nothing one way or another about "Quote" sections, leaving their width and location to the discretion of the designers. Trying new location and display layout. Because this portal randomly displays several selected sections, "missing" space varies by display combinations.
Clean up DYK section.
Convert list in "Introduction" to narrative.
Label last group of topics.
Done. Labeled "General".
Move "Show new selections" into Introduction box.
No change. "Show new selections" is a relatively new random display feature. After trying different locations in and below the "Introduction" box, consensus, e.g., at Portal:Cats, was the link was easier to locate by readers below the box.
Please add any tips here on how this page can be improved to Featured portal status. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks nice overall, well the basics are there such as Image credit, nice images, and the nice intro. I don't see any thing amazingly bad or something that needs attention. Good job. — Seadog 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Pretty good. Some suggestions:
The quote should not have a 100% width and it should be moved under "Categories" to fill the missing space.
"Did you know?" section needs some work:
There is no space between second and third DYK's.
There should be a "*" before all of the DYK's.
First and second DYK's need a "?" at their end, and a better prose.
They all should be a little shortened.
I don't like the list at the intruduction, it should either be compiled to prose or removed.
In the "Topics" section, what major topic are the topics at the last paragraph relating to? "Miscellaneous" maybe? Michaelas10(Talk) 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Good work, I do not have any suggestions other than the changes to the DYK section suggested by Michaelas. --Gphototalk 21:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition to Michaeas10's comments, do you think it is possible to please the "Show new selections" link inside of the main "The Philosophy of Science Portal" box. But otherwise, this is a good portal. s d 3 1 4 1 5finalexams! 22:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this is already a great job. Just a small suggestion: the title background color seems too pale in my opinion. It makes the page looks very whitish, but not that it's a big deal. If you prefer very light colors, it's fine with me too. --Melanochromis 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Ehhm I noticed the "Associated Wikimedia" section is exactly the same as on Portal:Science and has nothing to do with philosophy of science. Explanation? Michaelas10(Talk) 08:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the sister projects have virtually nothing specifically tagged as "philosophy of sciene." Anything related to philisophy and/or science seems to be burried under other topics. This box seems to be a Catch-22 here, either get dinged for being too general or get dinged for not having it. Feel free to offer a solution! :-) Rfrisbietalk 14:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well the portal guidelines don't mention this as a required section, but rather as a recommanded one. I also believe the portal is large and informative enough without it. I say get rid of it. Michaelas10(Talk) 16:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's see what happens. :-) Rfrisbietalk 16:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are some tips:
Expand Things you can do. It seems really short. Maybe make each heading have 3-4 items.
Fix selected picture for 800x600 screens. It goes out of the box for me and crosses into Thomas Kuhn.
The image in the DYK seems to overlap the text for some reason. I don't know if positioning could fix this.
Expand Selected article to even up the columns? The right side is way longer than the left side.
Maybe you should remove the "read more" part for the Selected biography? I think "more..." would suffice.
Besides these small things, I think it's a great portal. =) Nishkid64 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at the -printable page- format and there are significant overlaps and printing errors. I cannot tell from the format or markup how to correct. Can someone who is expert in markup have a look and cleanup the format. For a *Best ARticle* page, it is hard to see a bunch of formatting errors clounding the view. smithrna
I see no print errors in IE6. Can you be more specific about the errors you see and browser you use? RichardF 01:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeing no problem or reply, I removed the tag. RichardF 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt the relevance of this concept and ask for control. --KnightMove 15:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
What kind of control are you asking for? It seems to be a concept about which a modest amount as been written (making it a legitimate article topic). If there are published critiques from scholarly sources, you're welcome to modify the article accordingly. If there are errors in the article, fix them. But if you're just worried that proponents of that concept exaggerate its relevance, we have lots of article about concepts like that. (The early involvement Ravetz as an editor should send up a few red flags, but that's not grounds for any sort of drastic action if the content is described accurately based on the sources.)--ragesoss 15:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm. All literature given was written by two people without high-profile, possibly not even relevant by themselves. There is not even a fistful of websites associated with the two, and one mention in a serious newspaper. This appears to be an irrelevant private theory. --KnightMove 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Four academic publications about it means it's quite sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability requirement.--ragesoss 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)