History of logic: FA standard?
Is it: (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
- I believe it is well-written.
(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
- It is comprehensive: it covers all the main periods of logic from antiquity to the present day.
(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
- The main materials for this article were from my extensive logic library. I relied extensively on Kneale and Kneale's history of logic.
(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
- the topic of logic is, I hope, entirely neutral and bias-free.
(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
- there has never been an edit war over this article
It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
- The lead summarises exactly what is in the main sections.
(b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes () or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p.
- Citations are mostly Harvard style (I would appreciate help on this though)
Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article uses summary style throughout.
Comment by Charles Stewart
I will say a little more about my criticism on the talk page, though probably not all that soon. I have only read the current version briefly, although I have read earlier incarnations of this page closely; I have made efforts to double-check my comments below against the current version, but it is possible I have not been completely thorough.
- (Content a) Very good standard
- (b) I think it covers the bases. I count myself an expert on logic, although history of logic is a weaker area for me.
- (c+d) A mostly excellent standard.
- You clearly know more about Stoic Logic than I do, but I am bothered by the neglect of Chrysippus, who I think is now regarded as the most important Stoic logician, one who was an important influence on Lukasiewicz. I am sorry to say, i don't think I can repair this properly, although the SEP article does provide material to balance coverage in this area.
- Modern logic:
- Psychologism deserves more treatment than as an indirect reference in an aside on Peirce.
- The periods of modern logic section is very good, except that I would not have treated the period from WWII in this way. Topics are treated that I don't consider of such high importance (e.g., deontic logic), crucial topics omitted (e.g., the 'Entscheidungsproblem'), and some topics handled less than deftly (e.g., set theory). I can fix these.
- (e) I agree, stable. The quality of expert contributions to this article has generally been appreciated by editors with an interest in the article.
- (Style a+b) Exemplary use of summary style.
- (c) I haven't look closely at this. With Harvard style, it is a little perverse to separate the date from the author in the list of references (although that is exactly what ISO 690 mandates, which several medical journals combine with Harvard style!). I recommend following the style used in the Logic article.
I am pleased to see there is will to take this deserving article to FA status, and I think the issues with the article can be repaired with moderate effort, which I will, eventually, be willing to invest. — Charles Stewart signed 09:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Smith 2007, p. 1.