Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The peer review department of WikiProject Philosophy conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality. The process is intended to make both marginal and good quality articles into excellent, encyclopedic ones. However, use of a peer review for articles assessed below the WikiProject's B-Class may not be a good use of reviewers' time.

Editors with article requests involving significant policy and/or POV concerns or edit wars should use Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and/or Noticeboards before a peer review.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the WikiProject Philosophy. Please consider reviewing someone else's article too, if you request yours :-)


Requesting a review[edit]

  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{Philosophy}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write what you hope to gain from a peer review. For example, what are you aiming for with this article? Do you hope it can become a Featured Article? Good Article? Or something else? Remember to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.
  6. Add a link to your article to the beginning of the Peer Review announcement list.
  7. The peer review volunteers interested in your subject area welcome direct requests. Simply leave a message on their user talk page inviting them to comment on your article.

Responding to a request[edit]

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== Review by [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.


Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{Philosophy}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.
  3. Remove article from Peer review announcement list


Wolfgang Harich[edit]

I expanded this stub for a class project and a peer review is required. If someone could give it a look over ASAP, that would be great! Thank you for your time!Nock526 (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kant's antinomies[edit]

I just want more knowledgeable persons, to edit and review the artcile. Efiiamagus (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary philosophy[edit]

A roadmap to "Good Article" is what I'm looking for. Atfyfe (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


This entire Page has been rewritten to reflect the academic side of Theosophy in Philosophy/MetaPhysics & Religion. I would like to establish the recognition of this topic/page as within the academic usage. I am trying hard to keep it that way. (there are a few people and societies who believe that they own this word). I am looking for the following assistance

  1. Establish this is the Academic Topic and not the correct place to discuss various items concerning doctrines of various authors, societies which are already heavily present in Wikipedia.
  2. What/which areas might be best to develop first/next. e.g. Academic topics over the last 600 + years (excluding mass media usage)?JEMead (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)