Talk:Socrates/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ardenter (talk · contribs) 06:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning

Hello! I'm going to review this over the coming days.

The box

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Stability

The content has been moderately changed recently for this review, but there are no edit wars or disputes. It seems good. Ardenter (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The images for the majority of the article are illustrative. However, there is a lack of images in the philosophy section. I'm going to review 6b once sufficient images are added. Ardenter (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. After reviewing the rest of this article, I'm going to mark 6b negatively for now and check 6a. Ardenter (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All images appear legitimate. Ardenter (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5 images have been added. [1], [2],[3], [4], [5]. Cinadon36 08:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style and neutral point of view at present

There appear to be quite a few Manual of Style issues. The section "Virtue and Knowledge" should be "Virtue and knowledge". A lot have words to watch. "But it contradicts other statements of Socrates, when he claims he has knowledge" would adhere as "In other statements by Socrates, he claims he has knowledge." "It was this sign that prevented Socrates from entering into politics, Socrates claimed at his trial" would adhere as "Socrates claimed at his trial that this sign prevented Socrates from entering into politics." Those should serve as an example. It needs serious clean up regarding words to watch and needs to clearer define who is making points. The article needs a lot of revisions here. I'm going to fail these now. Ardenter (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ardenter:, may I kindly ask, why have you marked negatively on npov, so I could improve the article? No narrative is getting more or less attention, promoted or demoted- I was reflecting literature. Are you referring to "words to watch"? If so, can you point to few examples pls? Thanks! Cinadon36 08:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is mostly because of the words to watch policy. For example, "But it contradicts other statements of Socrates, when he claims he has knowledge". I'd just recommend doing a Ctrl+f search for "pointed out", "but", "however", and other words to watch and removing them. I think then the article would have NPOV then. Have a good day! Ardenter (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @Ardenter: I will try to remove most words, even though I am not too sure that they necessarily introduce a POV perspective. Surely, they are used frequently in order to downgrade an opinion, esp. in controversial articles relating to history, religion or politics but I think this is not the case in this article. (oh! did I just introduce my POV?) I think the cases that introduce a pov, could be detected if the two sentences, are having a different citation. So, a user adds a referenced sentence, another user who wants to disqualify the first, adds a following sentence (referenced), starting with a "but" or "however". Anywayz....I will see what I can do and reply in detail. Cinadon36 05:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All "however"s have been removed,[6] except one that was part of a quotation. It wasn't hard. Now, going for the "but"s. Cinadon36 06:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed many "but"s, [7] but not all. Some where within quotations, whereas others, they introduce an antithesis that is sourced. I do not consider them as inserting POV.Cinadon 36 07:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed 2 out of three "despite"s [8]. The one left is not producing "implications that are not supported by the sources." (pre MOS:EDITORIAL). Neither the 2 left out I suppose, but they were introducing rather trivial info. Cinadon36 07:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though, removed [9] Cinadon36 07:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

The article seems solid in its coverage. It covers each part of Socrates' life in appropriate depth. I'm going to say yes for 3. Ardenter (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

I've done some plagiarism checks. Everything seems fine. Checking off.

References

All references are listed and appear reliable. Checking off.

Grammar

There needs a couple grammar revisions. "Irony of Socrates is so subtle and slightly humorous, that often leaves reader wondering if Socrates is making an intentional pun" would fit as "The irony of Socrates is so subtle and slightly humorous, that often leaves the reader wondering if Socrates is making an intentional pun." I think that each sentence should be checked for grammar by the nominator.

Conclusion

I'm going to go with wait for now. A lot of the problems here are, with effort, easily overcomable. Once you think it's ready, notify me and I'll check for the last problems. If you want to have a full list of the problematic sentences, also notify me. Have a good day!

Hi @Ardenter: Thanks for taking some time to review this article. I am not a native English speaker, and even in my own language I rely on others to help me on grammar and spelling. The article is pending a review from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, but since it seems it s delaying, I will ask from good co-Wikipedians @Ktrimi991 and Resnjari: if they could be kind enough to assist. Mates, can you help, pls? Cinadon36 16:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will check every sentence of the article tomorrow. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I just made a bunch of grammar edits, particularly in the "Biography" section. Hope that's helpful. Wolfdog (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly are helpful. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Calthinus: can you too give some help? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can give it a look. --Calthinus (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Calthinus! If you need any clarifications, pls ask me! Cinadon36 16:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section should be reviewed and updated for errors following the many additions made above in this review. For example, Socrates is stated to "start" the dialogues with the others. This is not the case in the Symposium, for example, where "Socrates is late to arrive because he became lost in thought on the way. When they are done eating, Eryximachus takes the suggestion made by Phaedrus, that they should all make a speech in praise of Eros, the god of love and desire. It will be a competition of speeches to be judged by Dionysus. It is anticipated that the speeches will ultimately be bested by Socrates, who speaks last." The lead section should be corrected and updated based on all the revisions made during the last month by various editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a separate section, but nevertheless, here is my answer. Intro should reflect main body of the article. Main body of the article should reflect RS. Our interpretations after reading primary sources, or what other WP articles says, do not matter. I inserted a phrase in the main body that clarifies that Socrates initiates the discussion. Maybe the dialogues do not start with Socrates, but the philosophical essence of the dialogues, starts with Socrates asking what is F-ness? Benson 2011 says so, is enough for me. Cinadon36 18:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per MOS:LEADLENGTH the lead should be three or four paragraphs (probably four) as the article is 55,052 characters [10]. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, 3 paragraphs now. Cinadon36 20:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]