Talk:Astrology/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Passed – This article has met all the criteria for Good Article status. I am therefore granting said status to Astrology. Congratulations! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment - This article was nominated for Featured Article status in December of 2006, over seven year ago. Having given this a quick read-through, I can attest that this article is vastly different than the last time it was given the attention of being a candidate for exceeding expectations. Simply saying that gives a connotation for the massive transition this piece has underwent. I am pleased to have the opportunity to give this article another chance.

Thank you. It has been substantially rewritten from many sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede

• The opening uses the term "comprise". I would suggest the alternative term of "consist". However, this is merely a suggestion to not the degree of insistence, as "comprise" suffices for a GA.

Done.

• Perhaps the explanation of the function of astrology would be better served on the basis of multiple individuals, rather than an individual's.

I see what you mean, but a chart is always drawn up for a single entity, usually a person.

• The second paragraph is well written, if not written with British English rather than American English!

Thank you. The article is supposed to be in British English, we can fix any deviations you find.

• Having noticed this in the third paragraph first, it is preferred to utilize "throughout" rather than "through", while concerning the parallel with history.

Done.

• While describing the context of astrology as a pseudoscience, it may be be better to clarify it as a pseudoscience first, rather than giving said connotation in parentheses.

Done.

• This is not a matter of insistence, but is including the references of Cosmic Perspectives: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of M.K.V. Bappu and Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1 in direct sequence. On a further note, it may be acceptable to not include these references in the lede, existentially assuming that said references and information are provided to a more comprehensive extent later in the article, which they are!

Yes, I generally avoid refs in lead sections, but people have placed them here to defend claims that could be disputed, so I suspect it will be wisest to leave them alone. The lead is the part most likely to be 'visited' by new and IP editors, so caution has some justification here.

• Admittedly, the closing sentence of "Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been proven wrong" seems unnecessary, given that this is inherent, considering the rest of the paragraph preceding this.

It is not redundant, and given how contentious the matter is, it is probably best to have it cited in the lead, which means the text should remain there also.

Etymology

• This section is substantial and provides all the proper information in an encyclopedic context.
  • Admittedly, I don't see a need for a new subsection that provides a subtext for the term "astrology".

Thankyou.

Principles and practice

• The first sentence is floating. It should be the first sentence of the paragraph that constitutes the whole of the intro for this section.

Done.

• While listing off the celestial bodies, remember to include "and" preceding the last mention.

Done.

• The overview for Western astrology is satisfactory. Perhaps a run-through to look for any further potential missing conjunctions could be beneficial, but the cases, ("such as organized by planet"), are a matter of preferences.

Thankyou.

• So far as the "Indian and South Asian" subsection is concerned, are there any further details to digress into? I am aware that, since it essentially adopted the Babylonian method at an early date, that it has a shorter history, similar to the comparison between English and Scottish Constitutions. However, if that's all she wrote, then it can be considered acceptable.

This is meant as a brief summary, and I agree with you on the facts. The link provided to Hindu astrology gives much more detail.

• The "Chinese and East-Asian" subsection reads in an encyclopedic format with reliable sources, (I've come across several in my days, mind you). My pet peeve that could be considered applicable to the entirety of this article is that double digit numbers are best presented written out. Other than that, this section is solid.

Thankyou.

History

• My first recommendation- I would like to see this section following etymology and preceding the section on principles and practice.

Done.

• "Astrology, in its broadest sense, is the search for meaning in the sky". Heh, I just got goosebumps. Very direct!

Great.

• "Human" should be lowercase.

Changed one Human to human.

• The sentence introducing the Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa begins with "Two". I am slightly confused, as I do not know if this is a follow-up to something that constitutes "One", or if it's a typo.

Fixed.

• "Another" followed by a comma puts me off as well, as the context of its correlation to something else remains unclear.

Fixed.

• The information of the "Ancient world" subsection is accurate and with the exception of my suggestions, remains on par for GA quality.

Thankyou.

• In the "Ancient objections" section, I would replace all of the uses of the term "further" with "farther", while dealing with distance, rather than temporal scale.

Replaced.

• "In 525 BC Egypt was conquered by the Persians"- please insert a comma after 525 BC and change it to BCE for all mentions of Before the Common Era. Other than that, Hellenistic Egypt suffices.

Done.

• For the section "Greece and Rome", "By the 1st century BC there were two varieties of astrology,..." - I'd like a comma after the 1st century.

Done.

• "The first definite reference to astrology in Rome comes from the orator Cato, who in 160 BC warned farm overseers" - This may be a matter of style, but a comma would do well after "who" and one would be very welcome after what will be BCE. ;)

I feel these aren't needed in British English.

• "Mediaeval"? I'm American, so it's different here. However, whatever floats your boat!

Again, article was created using British English.

• The Islamic-Medieval world section suffices.

Thankyou.

• So far as the paragraph about European history is concerned, the mention of Aquinas' practice in the same lieu as Aristotle could be streamlined slightly, so that the connection to Aristotle is better emphasized. Its current form, however, works and this remains a mere suggestion.

Rearranged, perhaps this is an improvement. Feel free to put it back if you don't like it.

• The section on "Mediaeval objections" is well-written, sound in referencing and overall encyclopedic.

Thankyou.

• "In 1597, he English mathematician and physician Thomas Hood". Let's put a "t" at the front of "he". ;)

Done.

• The sentence "By the 17th century, in England, astrology had reached its zenith" could be rewritten as "Astrology had reached its zenith in England by the 17th century".

Rewritten.

• For a GAN, the subsection "Enlightenment period and onwards" suffices. For any future plans for FA status, expansion may be necessary.

Thankyou. Now that would be a challenge.

Science

• The three overview paragraphs should suffice. I feel the distribution of material is fair and presented in an encyclopedic format.

ok.

• With the "Effectiveness" subsection, let's move the period to before the four references with the clarification of it as a pseudoscience.

Done.

• The detail about the astrologers being British and American should be merged with another sentence detailing their statistics. In its current form, it's somewhat of a floating sentence.

Merged sentences.

• Reference 98 at this current moment, (Philosophy and Science of Music in Ancient Greece), is placed right after the designation of Gauquelin being an astrologer. Is this necessary, or is there an edit conflict that warrants this?

Moved ref to end of sentence.

• In the same lieu as my preceding comment, a reference is presented immediately after Ivan Kelly is mentioned. Are the two references complimentary of one another in a way that the one after his name is necessary?

Moved ref to end of sentence.

• The presentation of "Demarcation" seems to be more representative of the overarching theme of the "Science" section. This is at the discretion of Chiswick Chap and other editors, but would having this section come before "Effectiveness" make sense?

Moved.

• "Philosopher Paul Thagard believed that astrology can not be..." - combine into "cannot".

Done.

• "Many astrologers claim that astrology is scientific.[112] Some of these astrologers have proposed conventional causal agents such as electromagnetism and gravity." This can be combined into one sentence, as not only the information complementary, but they utilize the same reference.

Done.

Theological viewpoints

• Are there any other ancient viewpoints beside St. Augustine's?

Well, the Emperor Constantine prohibited it, but that could be said to be a political rather than purely theological act. Other ancient but not Christian viewpoints are described in the History section. I think we have broad coverage.

• "In essence, Avicenna did not deny the essential dogma of astrology"... - I'd start the sentence off with "essentially", but that's just me. It's fine.

Done.

• With the closing of modern viewpoints, the references of Our Sunday visitor's Catholic encyclopedia and Peter Hess are used. But then, "Catechism of the Catholic Church - Part 3" is used. Are one or two of these references expendable, with the last one necessary, or are they all necessary?

On the whole I'd err on the side of caution, with more refs preferable to too few, and as you imply, the quote must be cited directly to source.

Cultural impact

• "In fact de Wohl's predictions..." - Comma after "In fact". I'd do that, but I want to concentrate on this review until I'm done.

Done.

• Other than that, the rest of "Western politics and society" is good, surprisingly. Good job.

Thankyou.

• With the subsection "India and Japan", "Indian politics has" should be changed to "have".

Done.

• In the "Literature and music" subsection, the paragraph about the 16th century for astrology seems presented in a list format. Give it variety and it should be golden.

Done.

Closing thoughts

This article is very close to being ready for Good Article status. Implement my suggestions and I will be happy to grant said status. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've actioned all the items. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)