Talk:Kantian ethics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tom Morris (talk · contribs) 09:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No glaring issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well sourced, perhaps a bit too much emphasis on book sources and avoiding journal sources. For the issues below in response to criteria three, I'd suggest balancing out the book sources with journal sources would be useful.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Meets GA standards, but I'd say that if authors of this article have any intention of taking it to FA, the reception section needs to be much longer. One thing that could definitely be included is more on the applicability of Kantian ethics: take areas of contested practical ethics (abortion, animal rights, euthanasia/assisted suicide) and point to the literature where the Kantian position is debated. Similarly, there is considerable debate in the philosophical literature about how exactly to interpret aspects of Kant. FA standard would require some discussion of this, I think. Neither of these two suggestions would count if properly sourced as either coatracking or trivia/cruft (etc.).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Obviously, there's a lot more that can be said, but what exists looks pretty neutral to me.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit warring or contentious talk page activity.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   (As a Rawls fan, I have to say, it's a shame we don't have a free image of John Rawls on Commons.)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very well done, really a model of how to do a well-written and readable philosophy GA in my opinion