Talk:Relation (philosophy)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. 750 h+ 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Phlsph7: I'll review this. Sorry about the eight month long wait you've had to undergo. I'll begin soon. 750 h+ 06:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: Thanks for picking up this review! This was a long wait indeed. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written

lead

realists, relations have mind-independent existence. add the article "a" before "mind-independent
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

definition and features

the first-born sibling stands in the relation of being older to their other siblings. change "to" to "than".
I added the "than" but kept the "to" (the being-older-than relation from first-born to the siblings)
two distinct relations instead of seeing them as one and the same remove "one and"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Determinable relations are not clearly specified remove "clearly"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

types

to the relata and it is impossible for the two relata to exist without ==> "and the two relata cannot exist without"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two statements are contraries if it is not possible that both are true but it is possible that both are false I think is unnecessarily wordy
I found a simplier formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A special case of non-symmetric relations are asymmetric relations "are" ==> "is"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An example is the relation being a parent of: I don't think "of" is needed
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ontological status

The location problem consists in the question of where relations are located. "in" ==> "of"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A closely connected issue concerns the manner in which relations depend "the matter in which" ==> how
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that they are located in the object which bears them and on which they depend} change the second "which" to "that"
I found a simpler formulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He claims that in order to be related to them "in order to" ==> "to"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Objections to eliminativism in general are often based on the idea remove "in general"; "often" already explains that
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

history

to reconceptualize the nature of relations and the need of relations to describe reality on its most basic level. "need of relations" ==> "need for relations"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The view that view that relations are reducible The way this sentence is phrased is a bit confusing
I hope the new version is clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
validity of reasoning in regard to relations ==> "validity of reasoning regarding relations"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable with no original research

Sources, as always, look good, with most being books and dictionaries. Spot check performed on 3, 14, 51, 88, 138 and 140. Earwig finds a violation unlikely, with a 27.5% similarity to a SEP source. Source review and spot check pass. 750 h+ 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad

I know nothing about this topic so I cannot judge, but because of the articles you've written Phlsph, I'll pass this nonetheless. 750 h+ 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral

Understandable to a good audience, with some facilitative examples. No. 1 also helped. Pass. 750 h+ 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stable

Hasn't been edited in a while, so I doubt we're going to see a significant amount of editing soon. Pass. 750 h+ 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Illustrated

Nine appropriately licensed images in the article, each of which have WP:ALT text and are well-positioned. Pass. 750 h+ 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you taking care of this long overdue review and providing all the actionable suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Phlsph! Hope you don’t mind waiting a few hours before i promote this. 750 h+ 19:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.