Review in Progress
Footnote 7 is lacking enough information. Footnote 12 needs cleaning up. Footnote 21, 24, 25, 38, 43 should cite a peer-reviewed or other source, even though it's from "Stanford", it is not the best possible source on the matter. WP:IRS Footnote 26 is a dead link. Footnote 27 should be linked to a better source. WP:IRS Footnote 36 is non-RS. WP:IRS Footnote 37 leads to the same site as 36 but it is not consistent in its titling. Both are non-RS. WP:IRS Footnote 39, 40, and 50 are too general to verify. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. I'll take a look at the issues you raised in regard to the references. You've written nothing in regards to the rest of the Good Article criteria: am I to assume that you have no problems in that respect? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, in response to your review, I have done the following:
- Expanded the McGrath reference
- Replaced the reference before the outline of Plantinga's argument with a more reliable reference
- Removed an unreliable reference (and with it reference to an unreliable criticism) from the section on Plantinga.
I have not removed the SEP or IEP references, as they are considered reliable sources and are recognised as reliable sources by the Philosophy WikiProject. The article are written by established contemporary philosophers, so I do not think that there is an issue with reliability there. I'm not quite sure what problems you have with sources 37 and 49 (they were 39 and 50 at your review - the numbers have changed). Although the Tim Holt reference isn't totally reliable, it is not supporting anything contentious. I hope you accept my comments - if there's anything else that needs changing, please let me know. As I said before, I'd like to hear your comments regarding the other Good Article criteria. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Generally sounds adequate--though I somewhat disagree with the use of online content that summarize the articles and books by authors that could be easily discovered by a read of the original sources (in favor of a future feature article promotion, which I'd prefer for all basic philosophy articles such as this). Will report in the next 72 hours as to the entire evaluation. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thank your for your feedback. If you have an issue with the use of the IEP and SEP, I suggest you make suggestions at the Philosophy WikiProject, where consensus can be established. Until then, I do not feel it is appropriate to criticise an article for using sources that are widely accepted by the community. Neverthless, thank you for the review, and I look forward to your final comments. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
A few more points I'd like to address.
1) The classification section appears to rely too much on Oppy, and is written as if he is the world's foremost expert on the subject matter. It does not take into account the work of other very prominent modern scholars such as Brian Leftow of Oxford University or John Polkinghorne. These are merely examples of the wealth of other opinions out there, which the article does not appear to recognize. At the very least it would be best to include at least one other differing point of view, to avoid the appearance of advocating of behalf of the Monash professor.
2) At the start of the Development section the blurb about Avicenna is written a bit dismissively of those who claim there was an OA before Anselm. It would be better to say that the those views are "in dispute", as it is more neutral language. Not a major thing though.
3) As Anselm's argument is perhaps the most important thing to know about the ontological argument, it would be nice to see a better effort trying to explain the argument in layman's terms in addition to the technical explanation--such as is found later on with the sections on Sadra or Godel. As it stands, the Anselm section is not written clearly enough for someone who does not already know what the OA is to grasp the content of the idea. More time is spent doing so for even Gasking than Anselm, which seems to be an imbalance.
4) No citation follows the block quote in the Sadra section. Citations should follow quotations, not precede them.
5) Again we find Oppy arising in the Godel section. Up until this point he has been the sole modern scholar cited by name in the entry, giving the appearance of either a lack of knowledge of the other modern scholars or undue preference given to his work. So, up until this point, the entry is too reliant on only the work of Oppy.
6) Almond's quotation in the Plantinga's section is now no longer cited whatsoever, so a citation needs to be added.
7) Again we hear from Oppy--at this point his opinions have been given greater weight than many of the people he is writing about. Deference to Oppy needs to be reined in.
8) It is unclear whether or not the reference to Broad is covered in the Dawkins source or only Himma is covered. If both are covered, I think an added citation should go after the Broad reference just to keep things clearer. If not, a citation for Broad needs to be added.
- Thank you - that feedback is very helpful. I have dealt with issues 2, 3 and 4. I have started to introduce alternative opinions in the classification section, but am pushed for time right now. I will finish that off and look at the other issues tomorrow evening. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I've made a few more changes. I agree with your general assessment that the article does feature Oppy quite a lot. He has made substantive contributions to the ontological argument, especially in his classification and analysis of the current arguments (most sources I've found themselves cite Oppy). Nevertheless, you are right that additional viewpoints are required. I have added the views of William Lane Craig and William L Rowe to the classification section, and Daniel Dombrowski's views to the beginning of the development section. There is little academic discussion on Gödel, but I've managed to add something from Robert Maydole. Heopfully that should give a better range of opinions. Gasking still needs additional views - I'll see what I can do there shortly. If there's anything else you think needs improving, let me know. And thank you again for your review - the article seems much better because of it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the additions are excellent. The Godel issue was simply one of a package of issues revolving around Oppy and on the whole that appears to have been taken care of--I'm okay with leaving the Godel section as is now, as after the addition of the Craig source and the rest of the sources added the issue of deference appears to have been dealt with effectively. The only thing left is that the Almond quotation still does not have a citation, and then I think the article is (in my opinion) ready to be promoted. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Paul Almond quote is referenced by source 30. Although I'm aware that the website isn't incredibly reliable and I don't really know who Paul Almond is (or who added the reference) - I'll see if I can find a source & philosopher for that. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, the citation just needed to be put back in (I believe it was gone before, maybe I was just seeing things). The Almond reference as its stands should be fine, and they Oppy deference have been alleviated for all intents and purposes. I'll go ahead and make my recommendation now. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)