Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epistemology/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self-nomination. This article has finally become stable enough for nomination. It is also a rare example of a philosophy article with a relevant picture... Banno 22:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Object, for a number of reasons:
- In-text citations need to be liberally inserted into the text.
- The one-paragraph sections should somehow be merged into a more coherent whole.
- Not sure how this could be done without a reduction in clarity. Banno
- Some of the shorter sections could be slightly expanded, then. The middle portion of the article reads somewhat like a list at present, particularly the sections from "Idealism" to "Skepticism". Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The "See also" section needs to be shortened dramatically. The article shouldn't try to function as a List of epistemic philosphers. More images would help; portraits of the philosophers mentioned can be used if nothing better is available.
- While I agree that images would add to the appeal of the article, I don't want to see the situation develop were every main philosophy article has a picture of Socrates. Perhaps this is a field in which pictures are not that important? Banno
- The lead section should be lengthened to several well-formed paragraphs.
- Other than that, seems like a fairly good article. Kirill Lokshin 01:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the huge "See also" at the bottom of the page needs cleanup. You can remove links to anything linked in the main body text. If the section is still huge after that, it may indicate that the article needs to be expanded. JYolkowski // talk 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've considerably reduced it. Banno 19:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Object, I'd like to see the references clearly identified and separated from "interest" external links. The signle sentence paragraphs need to be tidied up. I think that a bit more name dropping wouldn't hurt, for example in the lead the thinkers that have been particularly active in this field could be mentioned- since readers are probably more familiar with the names then they are with the subject matter.--nixie 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)